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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZATREA EVANS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES,

LLP, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CV-08-4993 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED defendants’ motions for terminating and

monetary sanctions are hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. To the extent the motions seek terminating sanctions, the motions are hereby

GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. To the extent the motions seek an award of monetary sanctions against Singal,

the motions are hereby GRANTED. Specifically, Singal is hereby ordered to pay to

AlliedBarton sanctions in the amount of $6952.22, and to Bayer sanctions in the amount of

$9788.30, such sanctions representing in each instance, the costs and attorneys’ fees

respectively incurred by said defendants by reason of Singal’s participation in the abovereferenced sanctionable conduct.

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 101 Filed 01/05/10 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

3. To the extent the motions seek an award of monetary sanctions against plaintiff,

the motions are hereby DENIED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 101 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
CARLOS OSCAR FUENTES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3302 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Paul E. Firmani, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KHOUZAM, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Emil M. Sanchez, Respondent, v Bernice Brendza, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 26, 1977, after an assessment of damages directed upon an order of said court, entered May 20, 1977, granting plaintiff’s motion for a default1 judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to appellant, and plaintiff’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3215 directing an assessment of damages and to enter default judgment denied. In this action to recover the sum of $75,000 for legal services, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement dated April 8, 1974. No answer was interposed. Asserting that defendant breached and failed to comply with the stipulation of" settlement, plaintiff moved in this action for an assessment of damages and entry of a default judgment. The stipulation of settlement does not contain a provision for entry of a judgment in the event of failure to comply with the stipulation. Under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiff was to be paid |23,000, which sum was to be realized from defendant’s share of the proceeds of the sale of a garage. Plaintiff obligated himself to "collaborate” on the sale "in full good faith, testing the current market values, together with other prior offers and any new ones that may be encountered, and consummation of the sale shall be made on a formula basis at levels not less than those outlined in the Arnold Penner Proposition”. No express time limit was set forth in the stipulation for the consummation of the sale. It was further agreed that if defendant consented to the stipulation, the instant action would be "discontinued.” Defendant did consent. It is noted that in opposing plaintiffs motion, defendant avers that she pursued all offers of purchase of the garage, but has been unable to effectuate a sale. No hearing with respect to *954the terms of the stipulation and the circumstances underlying the absence of a sale of the garage was held. Under these circumstances, it being envisioned that this action would be discontinued upon defendant’s consenting to the stipulation and in view of the terms of that stipulation, Special Term could not grant the relief requested by plaintiff by motion (in effect vacating the stipulation) and a plenary action is necessary for enforcement of or relief from the terms of the stipulation (see *Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v Royal Ins. Co.,*247 NY 435; *Hegeman v Conrad,*284 App Div 969). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.
#### DRESSNER et al. v. MANHATTAN DELIVERY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

1. Pleadings—Admissions—Effect.

An admission in the answer of an allegation of the complaint is not binding on defendant where plaintiff fails to rely upon it, and introduces evidence to controvert his own allegations.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 39, Cent. Dig. Pleading, § 82.]

2. Gabeiebs—Actions Against Cabbieb—Presumption of Ownership.

Consignors cannot sue the carrier for breach of the contract of carriage, in the absence of evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership of the goods by the consignee.

3. Same—Delay—Delivery—Questions of Fact.

Whether a tender of delivery to the consignee by a city delivery company on Monday of goods intrusted to it by the consignor on the preceding Saturday was made within a reasonable time was a question of fact.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by Lee Dressner and another against the Manhattan Delivery Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Moss & Feiner, for appellants.

Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson, for respondent.

O’GORMAN, J.

Action to recover damages for a carrier’s neglect to deliver goods within a reasonable time. The defendant’s first contention is that the plaintiffs cannot maintain this action; invoking the rule that consignees are presumed to be the owners of goods consigned, and that only where this presumption is overcome can a consignor bring an action based upon the carrier’s breach. Levy v. Weir, 38 Misc. Rep. 362, 77 N. Y. Supp. ,917. While the answer admits the allegation of ownership in the plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ counsel nevertheless brought out testimony which had the effect of disproving it. In such a case an admission in the pleadings is not binding where the party fails to rely upon it, and introduces evidence to controvert his own allegations. Cowing v. Altman, 79 N. Y. 167; Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 21 Hun, 537. No evidence was offered to rebut the pres'umption of ownership in the consignees, and the plaintiffs should not, therefore, be permitted to prosecute the action. But waiving this point, the evidence as. to the alleged unreasonable delay in the carriage and tender of the goods presented a question of fact which justified a finding for the defendant. The package was deliveréd to the defendant on Satur*801day, November 21st, and was returned to the plaintiffs on the following Wednesday. It is quite clear from the testimony that the package was tendered by the defendant to the consignees’ agent on Monday, the 23d, and refused. It was for the "court to say whether a tender of delivery on the 23d was made, under the circumstances, within a reasonable time.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                             COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

This Compensation Agreement is dated as of January 23, 2006 among Cyberlux
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Gregory Sichenzia
("Consultant").

         WHEREAS, the Company has requested the Consultant to provide the
Company with legal services in connection with their business, and the
Consultant has agreed to provide the Company with such legal services; and

         WHEREAS, the Company wishes to compensate the Consultant with shares of
its common stock for such services rendered;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
stated, it is agreed as follows:

1. The Company will issue up to 100,000 shares of the Company's common stock,
par value $.001 per share, to the Consultant subsequent to the filing of a
registration statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
registering such shares, as set forth in Section 2 below. The shares to be
issued shall represent consideration for legal services to be performed by the
Consultant on behalf of the Company.

2. The above compensation shall be registered using a Form S-8. The Company
shall file such Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 30
days of the execution of this agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Compensation Agreement has been executed by
the Parties as of the date first above written.

                                            CYBERLUX CORPORATION

                                            /S/ DONALD F. EVANS
                                            -------------------
                                            Donald F. Evans
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                            GREGORY SICHENZIA

                                            /S/ GREGORY SICHENZIA
                                            ---------------------
                                            Gregory Sichenzia
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronnie Rutledge, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 545]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic *961Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People established a sufficient foundation for the admission of the breathalyzer test results *(see, People v Dailey,*260 AD2d 81, 84, *lv denied*94 NY2d 821; *People v Brunelle,*255 AD2d 331). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The evidence establishes that defendant crashed his vehicle into a parked vehicle and then left the scene of the accident. The police followed a scratch mark in the road to defendant’s residence. They observed defendant’s vehicle in the driveway with extensive damáge to the front end, including a blown-out tire. When the police confronted defendant, he admitted that he had just been involved in the accident and had been drinking. The police observed defendant staggering and swaying and detected an odor of alcohol. Defendant was unable to perform the standard field sobriety tests. The testimony of defendant and his wife presented an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve, and its resolution of that issue is not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Pierson,*190 AD2d 1070). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
#### Roy Yost et al., Respondents, v Stanley Blumenfeld et al., Doing Business as Munro Machinery Co., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 8, 1977, as denied the branch of appellants’ motion which sought dismissal of the first cause of action of the complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. An issue of fact exists as to the first cause of action which can only be resolved at a trial. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Motion granted, Appeal d ismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 5 ,

202 3

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 392

- CV

JOHNNA HARRISON , Appellant

V.

SYED NAQVI AND SYED ANWAR , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 13841

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed April 11, 2023

. On September 20

, 202 3 , appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion is granted.

We dismiss the appeal

.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.
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 Quarterly Report of Pacific Biomarkers, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Ronald
R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Vice President and
Controller, 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:





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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
February 11, 2010


/s/ Ronald R. HelmRonald
      R. Helm,Chief
      Executive Officer/s/
      John P. JensenJohn P. JensenVice
      President and
Controller
### §5066. Provisions under the National and Community Service Act of 1990

The Corporation shall carry out this chapter in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the relevant provisions of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.), particularly the provisions of section 122 and subtitle F of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12572, 12631 et seq.) relating to the national service laws.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §426, as added Pub. L. 111–13, title II, §2156, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1592.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–113, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 394, known as the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4950 of this title and Tables.

The National and Community Service Act of 1990, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 101–610, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3127. Subtitle F of title I of the Act is classified principally to division F (§12631 et seq.) of subchapter I of chapter 129 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12501 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 4950 of this title.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 0 286

_____________________________ A MOS D ICKEY I II
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Leon County

. Jason L. Jones , Judge

. November 9, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert “C harlie ” Lee
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 1508.995 Principal. *Principal* means— ( a ) An officer, director, owner, partner, principal investigator, or other person within a participant with management or supervisory responsibilities related to a covered transaction; or
( b ) A consultant or other person, whether or not employed by the participant or paid with Federal funds, who— ( 1 ) Is in a position to handle Federal funds;
( 2 ) Is in a position to influence or control the use of those funds; or,
( 3 ) Occupies a technical or professional position capable of substantially influencing the development or outcome of an activity required to perform the covered transaction.
Fro

Sen

To:

Sub

The

em

lbm

dat

Ele

-- 

Den

Grou

1325

Dire

Gro www

 

om: Dennis Jo

nt: Thursday,

: CommPkgAC

bject: Docke

e Rules do n

missions per u

mCO2/kWh 

tabase. 

ectric Resista

nnis Jones, PE, 

up14 Engineerin

5 East 16th Aven

ect: 720-221-1079

oup 14 is the w.group14eng.co

ones 

, September 2

CHP2013STD0

et Number EE

not prohibit o

unit of heati

for Xcel Ene

ance Heating

LEED AP, CxA

g, Inc. - Inspiri

nue, Denver, Co

9 / Mobile: 720-9

e Carbon Gr om

25, 2014 11:3

0007 

RE–2013–BT–

or discourag

ing and cool

ergy of Colo

g is equivale

ing better build

lorado 80218

988-6725 

roup on the p

30:22 AM (UT

–STD–0007

ge the use of 

ing energy d

orado, for av

ent to using i

dings.

periodic tab

TC-05:00) Eas

Electric Res

delivered to a

verage HVAC

incandescent

le

stern Time (U

sistance Hea

an occupied

C equipment

t lighting, an

US & Canada)

ating. The ch

d space, using

t performanc

nd should be

hart indicates

g the averag

ce from the A

e discourage

s the CO2 

ge 

AHRI 

d.
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

Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Inmate Dearing (C 08-1712 MMC) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MICHAEL DEARING, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MACHADO 

AND OFFICER GODINEZ, 

Defendants.

Case No. C 08-1712 MMC 

ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

AD TESTIFICANDUM TO TRANSPORT 

PLAINTIFF MICHAEL DEARING, 

CDCR No. K-99759 

Plaintiff, MICHAEL DEARING, CDCR No. K-99759, a necessary and material witness in 

proceedings in this case beginning on July 8, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., is confined at the Sierra 

Conservation Center, Jamestown, California, in the custody of the Warden. In order to secure this 

inmate’s attendance at the settlement conference scheduled for July 8, 2010 at California State 

Prison, Solano, it is necessary that a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issue commanding 

the custodian of MICHAEL DEARING, CDCR No. K-99759, to produce him at California State 

Prison, Solano, 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, California 95687, the Honorable Nandor Vadas 

presiding, beginning on July 8, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.

/ / / 

Case 3:08-cv-01712-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/04/10 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

Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Inmate Dearing (C 08-1712 MMC) 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this Court, 

commanding the Warden of Sierra Conservation Center and the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation to produce inmate MICHAEL DEARING, CDCR No. K-99759, 

for a settlement conference at California State Prison, Solano, at the time and place above, until 

completion of the proceedings or as ordered by the Court, and thereafter to return the inmate to 

Sierra Conservation Center. 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this inmate 

and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM 

To: The Warden of Sierra Conservation Center, 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce inmate MICHAEL DEARING, CDCR No. K99759, for a settlement conference at California State Prison, Solano at the time and place above, 

until completion of the proceedings or as ordered by the Court, and thereafter to return the inmate 

to Sierra Conservation Center. 

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this 

inmate and to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

6/4/10

NANDOR J. VADAS, UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Nandor J. Vadas

Case 3:08-cv-01712-MMC Document 44 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York v. Freddie Brown.

Enlargement of time granted. The order of this court entered on April 16, 1959, assigning Mark N. Kaplan, Esq., as counsel for the defendant-appellant for the purposes of the appeal is vacated and said Mark N. Kaplan, Esq., is relieved of such assignment. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel for the defendant-appellant for the purposes of the appeal in the place and stead of said Mark N. Kaplan, Esq. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
### §3014. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–115, §2(e)(1), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1596

Section, Pub. L. 89–73, title II, §204, as added Pub. L. 93–29, title II, §201(c), May 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 32; amended Pub. L. 94–135, title I, §112(a), Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 719; Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §102(c), (d), title V, §503(b)(4)(A), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1514, 1559, provided for establishment of a National Information and Resource Clearing House for the Aging.
Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 6
Mailing Information for a Case 3:08-cv-02376-MHP 

Electronic Mail Notice List 

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. 

z Steve W. Berman 

steve@hbsslaw.com,robert@hbsslaw.com,heatherw@hbsslaw.com 

z Jessamyn Sheli Berniker 

jberniker@wc.com 

z Simon J. Frankel 

sfrankel@cov.com,ncutright@cov.com 

z William M. Goodman 

wgoodman@kasowitz.com,anathan@kasowitz.com,aajmani@kasowitz.com 

z Lance A Harke 

lharke@harkeclasby.com 

z George W. Hicks , Jr

ghicks@wc.com 

z Reed R. Kathrein 

reed@hbsslaw.com,pashad@hbsslaw.com,sf_filings@hbsslaw.com 

z Jeffrey G. Knowles 

EfilingJGK@cpdb.com,cyf@cpdb.com 

z Douglass A. Kreis 

dkreis@aws-law.com,aclifton@awkolaw.com,jwitkin@aws-law.com,rbaggett@awslaw.com,cbrumfield@awkolaw.com 

z Kim Elaine Miller 

kimmiller225@yahoo.com,kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com,ecf.notices@ksfcounsel.com 

z Conor Patrick Moore 

ef-cpm@cpdb.com,ef-cpm@cpdb.com 

z David S. Nalven 

davidn@hbsslaw.com,debrag@hbsslaw.com,heatherc@hbsslaw.com,jessicao@hbsslaw.com,kristenj@hbsslaw.com 

z Richard S. Scott 

rscott@wc.com,clanza-weil@wc.com 

z Thomas M. Sobol 

tom@hbsslaw.com,adama@hbsslaw.com,heatherc@hbsslaw.com,allisonl@hbsslaw.com,jessicao@hbsslaw.com 

z Gerson Avery Zweifach 

gzweifach@wc.com 

Manual Notice List 

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require 

manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order 

to create notices or labels for these recipients. 

Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 5 of 6
Kristen Johnson Parker 

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 

55 Cambridge Parkway 

Suite 301 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

Ethan M. Posner 

Covington & Burling LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2401 

Case 3:08-cv-02916-MHP Document 92 Filed 05/25/10 Page 6 of 6