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

Sixth Amended Pretrial Order on Case Management M:08-CV-01930-MMC (JL) 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

Andrew S. Friedman (admitted pro hac vice)

Wendy J. Harrison (CA SBN 151090) 

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 274-1100 

RODDY KLEIN & RYAN 

Gary Klein 

Shennan Kavanagh 

727 Atlantic Avenue 

Boston, MA 02111-02810 

(617) 357-5500 ext. 15 

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 

[Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE 

LENDING PRACTICES LITIGATION 

This document relates to 

ALL ACTIONS 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

M:08-CV-01930-MMC (JL) 

[PROPOSED] SIXTH AMENDED 

PRETRIAL ORDER ON CASE 

MANAGEMENT 

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 240 Filed 03/26/10 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

Sixth Amended Pretrial Order on Case Management M:08-CV-01930-MMC (JL) 

1

 Based on the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, this Court hereby 

amends its Fifth Amended Pretrial Order on Case Management (Doc. 205) in this action, and all 

subsequent orders relating to case management or discovery deadlines, and hereby modifies the 

Class Certification Phase of the case management schedule as follows: 

Pretrial or Trial Event Deadline

Fact Discovery Cutoff May 3, 2010 

Plaintiffs’ Expert Disclosure May 24, 2010 

Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure and 

Reports on Class Certification Issues 

May 24, 2010

Defendant’s Rebuttal Expert Witness 

Disclosure and Reports on Class 

Certification Issues 

June 14, 2010

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Witness 

Disclosure and Report re Class Certification 

Issues

June 25, 2010 

Expert Discovery re Class Certification 

Issues Cut-Off Date 

July 16, 2010 

Motion for Class Certification July 15, 2010 

Opposition to Class Certification August 27, 2010 

Reply in Support of Class Certification September 27, 2010 

Hearing on Class Certification October 29, 2010 

Post-Class Certification Status Conference January 14, 2011 

10:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED:

Dated __________, 2010 

 ________________________________ 

 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court Judge 

March 26

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 240 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### 731 West Lake Road, Inc., Respondent, v George R. Boheen, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendant in accordance with the following memorandum: Appellant Boheen was the purchaser of a condominium unit from respondent 731 West Lake Road, Inc. On the closing of that transaction, West Lake demanded reimbursement from Boheen for a proportionate share of the mortgage taxes previously paid by respondent on its blanket mortgage. Respondent claims it is entitled to the mortgage tax credit provided for in subdivision 2 of section 339-ee of the Real Property Law. That section authorizes a credit against the mortgage tax which would otherwise be due when a condominium unit is first conveyed. The credit given is in the amount of the unit’s pro rata share of the mortgage tax paid by the developer on its blanket mortgage. Unless the parties contract otherwise, the benefit of the credit goes to the purchaser. West Lake contends that it did provide otherwise. It relies on paragraph 8 of the purchase agreement between the parties and a portion of its offering plan, which it contends is incorporated in the purchase agreement. Paragraph 8 of the agreement, stripped to its essentials, provides simply as follows: "The Purchaser * * * agrees to pay to Seller [certain fees]; and in the event the Purchaser shall obtain *a purchase money ñrst mortgage** * * mortgage taxes * * * assessed on *the loan.”*(Emphasis added.) The "loan” on which the purchaser is required to pay the mortgage taxes necessarily refers to its antecedent, the purchase money first mortgage, not to mortgage loans earlier secured by West Lake. Similarly, the portion of the offering plan relied on by West Lake provides, in pertinent part: "The * * * costs * * * to be borne by * * * Purchaser are as follows * * * (c) In the event the Purchaser shall obtain *a purchase money ñrst mortgage** * * he shall pay to [West Lake] * * * the following costs actually paid by Sponsor * * * mortgage tax of *Yi%*of the amount of *the mortgage*up to $10,000 and %% of amount of mortgage over $10,000.” (Emphasis added.) As in the case of paragraph 8 of the agreement, the "mortgage” on which the purchaser is required to pay tax refers to the purchase money first mortgage, that is, the purchaser’s mortgage and not West Lake’s obligation. Had it been so intended, the agreement could have *1039provided in explicit terms that West Lake was to be reimbursed to the extent of any mortgage tax credit accorded the purchaser. Although there is no true ambiguity in the quoted clauses, any ambiguity therein should be resolved against West Lake, the draftsman of the doubtful provisions. *(Hodom v Stearns,*32 AD2d 234.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—submitted controversy.) Present—Simons, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Denman and Goldman, -JJ.
§ 219.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, Agency for International Development, International Development Cooperation Agency, Room 1224, SA-1, Washington, DC.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found;
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 219.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 4576, Feb. 5, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 4576, Feb. 5, 1986]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

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

11952/0055/785084.1

SUNNY S. HUO (State Bar No. 181071)

ssh@severson.com

KALAMA M. LUI-KWAN (State Bar No. 242121)

kml@severson.com

SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 398-3344

Facsimile: (415) 956-0439

Attorneys for Defendants

Countrywide Financial Corporation and

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH CAMELLO; RENEE CAMELLO, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION, etc., COUNTRYWIDE 

HOME LOANS, INC., etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: C 08-cv-5479 JCS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case 3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document 51 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page1 of 3
- 1 -

11952/0055/785084.1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

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

WHEREAS, a case management conference (“CMC”) is presently set for 1:30 p.m. on 

January 22, 2010;

WHEREAS, the parties are discussing whether settlement of this case is feasible; and

WHEREAS, the parties believe that continuing the CMC to February 26, 2010 would 

serve the interests of judicial efficiency and conservation of judicial and party resources;

NOW THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED by the parties 

hereto, through their respective counsel, that the CMC is rescheduled from 1:30 p.m. on January 

22, 2010 to 1:30 p.m. on February 26, 2010.

DATED: January 20, 2010 SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

By: /S/ Kalama M. Lui-Kwan Kalama M. Lui-Kwan

Attorneys for Defendants

Countrywide Financial Corporation and

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

DATED: January 20, 2010 NOCOS LAW FIRM

A Professional Corporation

By: /S/ Reuben L. Nocos Reuben L. Nocos

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Joseph and Renee Camello

Case 3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document 51 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page2 of 3
- 2 -

11952/0055/785084.1 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ January 20, 2010 Stipulation Continuing Case Management 

Conference, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January __, 2010 __________________________________________

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page3 of 3

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-05479-JCS Document 51 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ruth Nutis, Respondent, v. Saloway’s Restaurant et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and carrier from an award of death benefits in a heart case. Appellants challenge only the finding of accident and causal relation. Decedent was employed as a counterman in a restaurant. As a part of his duties he had to bring supplies up from the basement by means of a very narrow stairway with such a low ceiling that it was necessary to bend over in order to descend or ascend the steps. Decedent’s shift had been changed about two weeks before July 8, 1958, so that he had to work a shift, described as more strenuous by coemployees, on four days per week. There is evidence that on July 8, 1956 decedent went to the basement, moved some barrels to get a case of ketchup, and carried the case up the steps. He complained of pain in his chest at the time, and was described by a coemployee as looking ill and perspiring freely. Later the same day he saw a doctor who immediately ordered him hospitalized. His condition was diagnosed as acute coronary insufficiency with a possible myocardial infarction. He died in the hospital on July 26, 1958 from an acute myocardial infarction with pericarditis. There is medical evidence causally relating the heart attack and death to the arduous efforts and conditions of decedent’s work. The award is supported by substantial evidence. Award *847unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
§ 172.8 Considerations in determining whether the Department will comply with a demand or request. ( a ) In deciding whether to comply with a demand or request, Department officials and attorneys shall consider, among others: ( 1 ) Whether such compliance would be unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose;
( 2 ) Whether compliance is appropriate under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege or disclosure of information;
( 3 ) The public interest;
( 4 ) The need to conserve the time of Department employees for the conduct of official business;
( 5 ) The need to avoid spending the time and money of the United States for private purposes;
( 6 ) The need to maintain impartiality between private litigants in cases where a substantial government interest is not implicated;
( 7 ) Whether compliance would have an adverse effect on performance by the Department of its mission and duties; and
( 8 ) The need to avoid involving the Department in controversial issues not related to its mission.
( b ) Among those demands and requests in response to which compliance will not ordinarily be authorized are those with respect to which, *inter alia,* any of the following factors exist: ( 1 ) Compliance would violate a statute or a rule of procedure;
( 2 ) Compliance would violate a specific regulation or executive order;
( 3 ) Compliance would reveal information properly classified in the interest of national security;
( 4 ) Compliance would reveal confidential commercial or financial information or trade secrets without the owner's consent;
( 5 ) Compliance would reveal the internal deliberative processes of the Executive Branch; or
( 6 ) Compliance would potentially impede or prejudice an on-going law enforcement investigation.
Exhibit
      32.1


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that
      to
      my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
                August 19, 2008*/s/
                Roger Casas*Roger
                CasasChief
                Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or
      as a separate disclosure document.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: August 20, 2014
TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

– 2013

- 0602
FROM: Region 7 , EPA
SUBJECT: July

16, 2014 , Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

**SUMMARY**
A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 16 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

. The majority of the discussion centered on how goals were e stablished for the states in Region 7 : Io wa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska

. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014

. **ATTENDEES** EPA Region 7: Joshua Tapp Mark A. Smith Ward Burns Toni Gargas Beck y Weber Amy Bhesania John Smith
Io wa Department of Natural Resources: Catherine Fitzsimmons Mart ie Stein Jason Marcel Kansas Department of Health and Environment Tom Gross Melissa Weide Miles Stotts Lyn n Deahl Missouri Department of Natural Resources Mark Leath Paul My ers Emily Wilbur Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Shelly Schneider Adam Yarina Katie Gutierrez Brian Kozisek
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin VALLE-PERCHES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51019

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Benjamin Valle-Perches (Valle-Perches) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).

The district court sentenced VallePerches within a properly calculated advisory guideline range. Such a sentence is given “great deference,” and we infer that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a). *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Therefore, we conclude that Valle-Perches has failed to show that his sentence was unreasonable.

Valle-Perches argues, in light of *Ap-prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 87-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in the indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Valle-Perehes’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was *300incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Valle-Perches properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 04 1 . FREDERI K BUSTAMANTE-HERRERA v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 7
, Fred e ri k Bu s t am an t e-Herrera p l ead ed g u i l t y to ag g rav at ed s o d o m y

an d en t ici n g a ch i l d fo r i nd ecen t p u rp o s es

. In 2 0 2 1
, he fi led a p ro s e m o t i o n al l eg i n g

t h at h i s s en t en ce i s v oi d

. On Ap r i l 9
, 2 0 2 1
, t h e t ri al co urt en tered an o rd er d en y i n g

t h e m ot i o n

. O n M ay 6
, 2 0 2 1, Bu s t am an t e-Herrera fi l ed a n o t ice o f ap p eal

. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n b ecau se t h e ap p eal i s u nt i m el y

. To b e t i m el y , a n o t i ce of ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e

o rd er o n ap p eal

. O C G A § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro per an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f

ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u irem en t t o co nfer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. Da vi s v. S t a t e , 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 1 1
, 7 1 1 (7 6 9 SE2 d 1 3 3 ) ( 2 0 1 5). Here, Bu s t am an t e-Herrera’ s n o t i ce

o f ap p eal was fi l ed 3 5 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. Acco rd i n g l y , we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s id er t h i s ap peal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 20, 2021

10/20/2021
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2497 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2497

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2005

  Mr. Holden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid Technical.

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

SECTION 1. ACETAMIPRID TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.92 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Acetamiprid Technical) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY A. MCDERMOTT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-06300 SI, C-08-3432 SI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within sixty days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order shall

be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

Dated: SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03432-SI Document 187 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 1