alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Diana Garvis Purcel, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FamousDave’s of America, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designatedunder our system, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this quarterly report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s first quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Dated: August 10, 2004 /s/ Diana Garvis Purcel   Diana Garvis Purcel Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Case 3:09-cv-00129-SI Document 53 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00129-SI Document 53 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00129-SI Document 53 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended September, 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell Jackson,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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




Dated: /s/ May 30, 2003                        By:  /s/ RUSSELL JACKSON
       --------------------                         ----------------------------
                                                    Russell Jackson
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer




                                       24
!WACKER I 

New Substance -Silane 

INDUSTRIAl SITES CONlROlLED BY WACKER 

OPERATION DESCRIPTION 

Silicone pai'Y'I"ers, other 

fillers., w lora nts. crnsslinlten, adjuvants, and 

C<Jt aly&ts 

Final Product: 

treated hydrated alumina f------8 -----.J IXXXX~ 

CONFIDE NTIAJL 

Ml~ ng/ Blendlne: 

lXXX XI N~ID NTIA.L 

Si licone rubber wmpound In 

an uncuned !;tat e, provided t o 

1-----o4.-----.t cu•tomer.;. f or m<Jidi ng and 

,.. curing Into finished at~ cles at 

their production facilities 

Al 

Removal of empty 

container.; for recycling or 

inci n~?ra ti n 

tnee:l 

C3 

Equipment d'eaning 

operations, so rll or 

deanlng ae:ents sent for 

recy<:l inrg or incineration 

eg~ 

IX XXXI 

CONFIDE NliiAL 

Key: 

()amount of new substance 

neg negligible <~mount
Exhibit 32(a)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Bruce J. Haber, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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







May 11, 2010
 /s/
Bruce J. HaberBruce J. HaberChief Executive Officer
#### Rose Davies, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Mary Mitchell Youth Center, Appellant.

[836 NYS2d 16]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered February 4, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff s claim that appellant created the slippery condition of the floor on which plaintiff slipped by excessive waxing rests only on her observation that the floor was “shiny.” Such evidence, without more, does not permit an inference of negligent waxing *(Caran v Hilton Hotels Corp.,*299 AD2d 252 [2002], *lv dismissed*3 NY3d 693 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
### §1475a. Participation of non-Federal entities in contract negotiations and source selection proceedings

On and after October 2, 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation may invite non-Federal entities involved in cost sharing arrangements for the development of water projects to participate in contract negotiation and source selection proceedings without invoking provisions of chapter 10 of title 5: Provided, That such non-Federal participants shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 21 of title 41 and to the conflict of interest provisions appearing at 18 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (1988).

(Pub. L. 102–377, title II, §205, Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1332; Pub. L. 117–286, §4(a)(283), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4337.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In text, "chapter 21 of title 41" substituted for "the Federal Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C. 423 (1988))" on authority of Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–286 substituted "chapter 10 of title 5:" for "the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988)):".
§ 96.39 Information disclosure and quality control practices. ( a ) The agency or person fully discloses in writing to the general public upon request and to prospective client(s) upon initial contact: ( 1 ) Its adoption service policies and practices, including general eligibility criteria and fees;
( 2 ) The supervised providers with whom the prospective client(s) can expect to work in the United States and in the child's country of origin and the usual costs associated with their services; and
( 3 ) A sample written adoption services contract substantially like the one that the prospective client(s) will be expected to sign should they proceed.
( b ) The agency or person discloses to client(s) and prospective client(s) that the following information is available upon request and makes such information available when requested: ( 1 ) The number of its adoption placements per year for the prior three calendar years, and the number and percentage of those placements that remain intact, are disrupted, or have been dissolved as of the time the information is provided;
( 2 ) The number of parents who apply to adopt on a yearly basis, based on data for the prior three calendar years; and
( 3 ) The number of children eligible for adoption and awaiting an adoptive placement referral via the agency or person.
( c ) The agency or person does not give preferential treatment to its board members, contributors, volunteers, employees, agents, consultants, or independent contractors with respect to the placement of children for adoption and has a written policy to this effect.
( d ) The agency or person requires a client to sign a waiver of liability as part of the adoption service contract only where that waiver complies with applicable State law. Any waiver required is limited and specific, based on risks that have been discussed and explained to the client in the adoption services contract.
( e ) The agency or person cooperates with reviews, inspections, and audits by the accrediting entity or the Secretary.
( f ) The agency or person uses the internet in the placement of individual children eligible for adoption only where: ( 1 ) Such use is not prohibited by applicable State or Federal law or by the laws of the child's country of origin;
( 2 ) Such use is subject to controls to avoid misuse and links to any sites that reflect practices that involve the sale, abduction, exploitation, or trafficking of children;
( 3 ) Such use, if it includes photographs, is designed to identify children either who are currently waiting for adoption or who have already been adopted or placed for adoption (and who are clearly so identified); and
( 4 ) Such use does not serve as a substitute for the direct provision of adoption services, including services to the child, the prospective adoptive parent(s), and/or the birth parent(s).
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30119

Summary Calendar

 

EHLINGER & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation;

LADD P EHLINGER

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LOUISIANA ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2413-R)

 

December 21, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ehlinger appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of LAA dismissing his complaint. We affirm.

The gravamen of Ehlinger’s argument on appeal is that LAA

engaged in anti-competitive conduct by controlling the LASB.

Ehlinger claims that LAA obtained its dominance over the LASB by

supporting its members in LASB elections and soliciting the LASB to

adopt its positions on various issues. We agree with the district

court that “[Ehlinger’s] assertions are nothing more than
 

1We affirm the district court on Noerr-Pennington grounds and

do not reach the question of state-action immunity.

2

allegations that the LAA sought to influence the LASB and

succeeded.” Ehlinger & Assoc. v. Louisiana Architects Ass’n, 989

F. Supp. 775, 785 (E.D. La. 1998). LAA’s actions in lobbying the

LASB and campaigning to have its members elected to the LASB are

protected from antitrust attack by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight,

Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381

U.S. 657 (1965). We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion

that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars Ehlinger’s federal

antitrust claims against LAA.1

Ehlinger also contends that the district court improperly

dismissed his claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices

Act. According to Ehlinger, the statutory exemption under the

LUTPA for “conduct which complies with section 5(a)(1) of the

Federal Trade Commission Act”, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1406(4),

does not apply in this case because LAA evaded liability under the

FTCA on immunity grounds, not by complying with the Act. Like the

district court, we find Ehlinger’s argument to be unpersuasive.

Section 5(a)(1) of the FTCA declares unlawful “[u]nfair

methods of competition . . . and unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in or affecting commerce.” By holding that LAA’s conduct

falls under Noerr, we have recognized that LAA has engaged in

protected petitioning activity, not unlawful anti-competitive or

deceptive practices. LAA’s actions can not be the basis for § 5
3

liability; consequently, they qualify for the FTCA exemption in the

LUTPA. See FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411

(1990). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**List of Files in “ mo**  **ves_ff_nh_pm_runoutputs_to_mysql.zip ”** 

Name Size Type La st Modified

**Folder data Sub F**  **older 09000_ffnh_pmconfbudget_20120207_out** activitytype.frm 8,680 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM activitytype.MYD 511 MYD File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM activitytype.MYI 2,048 MYI File 2/7/2012 4:43 PM bundletracking.frm 9,514 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM bundletracking.MYD 374KB MYD File 2/8/2012 2:57 PM bundletracking.MYI 37KB MYI File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM db.opt 65 OPT File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movesactivityoutput.frm 9,278 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movesactivityoutput.MYD 626KB MYD File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM movesactivityoutput.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM moveserror.frm 9,026 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/20 12 4:41 PM moveserror.MYD 72 MYD File 2/7/2012 9:03 PM moveserror.MYI 4,096 MYI File 2/7/2012 9:11 PM moveseventlog.frm 8,786 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM moveseventlog.MYD 0 MYD File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM moveseventlog.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/7/2 012 4:41 PM movesoutput.frm 9,390 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movesoutput.MYD 11MB MYD File 2/8/2012 2:58 PM movesoutput.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM movesrun.frm 9,572 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movesrun.MYD 3,960 MYD File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM movesrun.MYI 2,048 MYI File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM movestablesused.frm 8,878 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movestablesused.MYD 66KB MYD File 2/8/2012 1:54 PM movestablesused.MYI 44KB MYI File 2/8/2012 1:54 PM movesworkers used.frm 8,812 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM movesworkersused.MYD 540 MYD File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM movesworkersused.MYI 2,048 MYI File 2/8/2012 3:13 PM rateperdistance.frm 9,268 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM rateperdistance.MYD 0 MYD File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM rateperdistance.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM rateperprofile.frm 9,124 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM rateperprofile.MYD 0 MYD File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM rateperprofile.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM ratepervehic le.frm 9,132 WordPerfect 12 Document 2/7/2012 4:41 PM ratepervehicle.MYD 0 MYD File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM ratepervehicle.MYI 1,024 MYI File 2/7/2012 4:41 PM
#### Humble Oil & Repining Company, Appellant, v. M. W. Kellogg Company, Defendant, and Carrier Corporation, Respondent. M. W. Kellogg Company, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendant.

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for examination before trial and for discovery and inspection, dated April 13, 1960, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to grant such motion except that the examination before trial of the defendant Carrier Corporation should be limited to its officers and employees having knowledge or information of the matters to which the notice of motion makes reference, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant against defendant-respondent. Settle order. The record makes evident that the parties agreed to a joint investigation and exchange of reports concerning the cause and extent of the fire. Plaintiff has produced its reports and permitted statements to be taken from its employees, whereas defendant Carrier Corporation has either failed to produce all its reports or caused the results of its investigation not to be reduced to writing. In such circumstances the usual discretionary limitation applicable to the scope of examination and discovery of documents should be withheld. With regard, however, to persons other than officers and employees of defendant Carrier Corporation, if, at the conclusion of the examination herein directed, plaintiff deems it material and necessary to procure the examination of such persons as witnesses, plaintiff will have to make application therefor, establishing the special circumstances in the customary manner. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2897 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2897

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the proper display 
                   of the flag over a one-way street.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the proper display 
                   of the flag over a one-way street.

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

SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF FLAG OVER ONE-WAY STREET.

    Section 7(j) of title 4, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``of the street'' and inserting ``of a two-
        way street''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``When the flag is 
        displayed over the middle of a one-way street, it should be 
        suspended vertically with the union to the left of an observer 
        moving in the direction of traffic.''.
                                 <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

[PROP] ORDER TO FILE DFTS’ LETTER BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND

SUPPORTING DECL. UNDER SEAL -- Case No. CV 09-1484 SI 1

pa-1393709

KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (BAR NO. 145384)

KKuwayti@mofo.com

COLETTE R. VERKUIL (BAR NO. 263630)

CVerkuil@mofo.com

CHRISTOPHER L. ROBINSON (BAR NO. 260778)

ChristopherRobinson@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304-1018

Telephone: 650.813.5600

Facsimile: 650.494.0792

Attorneys for Defendants

SORENSON GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, JAMES L. 

SORENSON, JOSEPH SORENSON, TIMOTHY 

FENTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GEM ACQUISITIONCO, LLC, and GEM 

REALTY FUND IV, L.P.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SORENSON GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, 

JAMES L. SORENSON, JOSEPH SORENSON,

TIMOTHY FENTON, and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 09-1484 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE

DEFENDANTS’ LETTER BRIEF 

IN OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL AND SUPPORTING

DECLARATION UNDER SEAL

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation for Leave to File 

Defendants’ Letter Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Supporting 

Declaration Under Seal. Having considered the arguments and evidence submitted and for

good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT SORENSON may file its Letter Brief in Opposition

to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel with redactions in the text where referencing materials that

were marked as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case,

Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 78 Filed 03/16/10 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

[PROP] ORDER TO FILE DFTS’ LETTER BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

SUPPORTING DECL. UNDER SEAL -- Case No. CV 09-1484 SI 2

pa-1393709

and that the following exhibits to the Declaration of Christopher L. Robinson in Support of the

Letter Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel may be filed under seal pursuant to

the Stipulated Protective Order: (a) the SGH-DBS letter of intent dated February 14, 2009

(SGH0001480); (c) an e-mail from Randy Single to Jeffery Golden dated February 7, 2009

(TPKE00003563); (d) the SGH-DBS purchase agreement dated February 17, 2009

(SGH0005277); (e) an e-mail from Jim Sorenson to Mark Staples et al. dated February 12,

2009 (SGH0002300); and (f) an e-mail from Mark Staples to Jim Sorenson dated February 12,

2009 (SGH0001486).

Dated: ______________________ ________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 78 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., No. C-09-0742 SI 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

ELENA R. BACA (SB# 160564) 

elenabaca@paulhastings.com

515 South Flower Street 

Twenty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 

Telephone: (213) 683-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

BENJAMIN B. STRAWN (SB# 261057) 

benjaminstrawn@paulhastings.com

55 Second Street 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL KLINE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., and 

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. C-09-0742 SI 

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF 

COUNSEL 

Case 3:09-cv-00742-SI Document 30 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-00742-SI Document29 Filed02/04/10 Page1 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- NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., No. C-09-0742 SI

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED COURT, AND TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL 

KLINE AND TO HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, MARK C. PETERS, AND THE LAW 

OFFICES OF DUCKWORTH • PETERS • LEBOWITZ LLP; AND JOHN A. FURUTANI, 

AND THE LAW OFFICES OF FURUTANI & PETERS, LLP: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Elena R. Baca and Benjamin B. Strawn will 

substitute into this matter, effective immediately, in the place and stead of E. Jeffrey Grube, Rishi 

N. Sharma and Ryan C. Hess of this firm. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

ELENA R. BACA 

BENJAMIN B. STRAWN 

By: /s/ Benjamin B. Strawn 

Benjamin B. Strawn 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

LEGAL_US_W # 63834452.1

Case3:09-cv-00742-SI Document29 Filed02/04/10 Page2 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:09-cv-00742-SI Document 30 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2