alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1093 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 246
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1093

                          [Report No. 109-719]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2006

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION



   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of December 6, 2006, 
providing for consideration of a bill to amend the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
                                                 House Calendar No. 246

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1093

                          [Report No. 109-719]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 5, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,725,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,725,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,250,184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     475,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,725,686
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,485)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,485)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)


</TABLE>
#### Pasquale Guarneri, Respondent, v. Carlos De C. Aloveiro, Appellant.

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August

22, 1968, dismissed, with costs. An order denying a motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff upon a trial limited to the issue of liability is not appealable *(Fortgang*v. *Chase Manhattan Bank,*29 A D 2d 41, 43). However we have considered the merits of appellant’s contentions and, if we were not required to dismiss the appeal, we would affirm the order. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
§ 1013.1 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* This part implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-509, sections 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (October 21, 1986), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. 31 U.S.C. 3809 of the statute requires each authority head to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of the statute.
( b ) *Purpose.* This part ( 1 ) establishes administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to authorities or to their agents, and
( 2 ) specifies the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments.
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 68 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### FOLTS, Respondent, v. REMINGTON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by George P. Folts against Hiram Remington and another.

No opinion. Order (100 N. Y. Supp. 834) affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
1536.602-2 Establishment of evaluation boards.       (a) The Environmental Protection Agency Architect-Engineer Evaluation Board is established as a central permanent Board located at Headquarters EPA under authority delegated to the Director, Office of Acquisition Management, which may be re-delegated.          (b) The Service Center Manager (SCM) is delegated the authority to appoint either one or two additional voting members as may be appropriate for a particular project.          (c) In the event of an emergency or extended absence, a member may designate, in writing, with the concurrence of the Chairperson, an alternate experienced in architecture, engineering, or construction to serve in his/her absence.          (d) The duties of the advisory member shall include, but not be limited to, the following:          (1) Assuring that the criteria set forth in the public notice are applied in the evaluation process; and          (2) Assuring that actions taken during the evaluation process do not compromise subsequent procurement actions.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1536.6 - Architect-Engineer Services
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with State-EPA Roundtable

DATE: Tuesday, May 6, 2014

TIME: Noon – 1:30 PM

Participants:

EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre, Christina

Christensen, Heather Goss, Alexis Wade, Glynis Hill, Ellen Weitzler, Wayne Jackson, Cheryl

Atkinson, Lauren Petter, Lisa Perras-Gordon, Angela Vincent, Russell Nelson, Ann Lavaty,

William Beckwith

ACWA/States – Melissa McCoy (ACWA), Gerry Szal (Massachusetts), Scott Stoner (New

York), Alex Barron (Virginia), Martha Clark Mettler (Indiana), Jason Childress (Oklahoma),

Mike Tate (Kansas), Sarah Johnson (Colorado), Deb Smith (California), Nancy Sonafrank

(Alaska), Cheryl Niemi (Washington), Susan Braley (Washington)

Summary of Meeting: Participants discussed options derived from public comments received.

TOPIC TIME LEAD__________

1. Roll Call 10 min Aguirre

2. Roundtable Input on Options 60 min Roundtable

3. Questions & Answers 15 min Roundtable

4. Reminders for next Roundtable meeting 5 min Aguirre
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 15 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-2 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 9 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 47-3 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 7 of 7
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
    Title: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0132.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 7,230.
    Number of Respondents: 15.
    Average Hours per Response: 10 to 600.
    Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports enforcement 
of the Antiboycott provisions for the Export Administration Regulations 
(EAR) by providing a method for industry to voluntarily self-disclose 
Antiboycott violations.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-
for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, (202) 395-3123.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84e0ccfdeae1efc4e0ebe7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a1e3203141f113a1e1519541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#054f6476686060715a4e2b5a5660606d7764456a68672b606a752b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="034962706e6666775c482d5c5066666b7162436c6e612d666c732d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>, or Fax to (202) 395-5167.

    Dated: December 9, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-31293 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARICRUZ HERNANDEZ-RAMIRES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71347

Agency No. A096-345-284

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Maricruz Hernandez-Ramires, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

SEP 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71347

review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ram

v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the

petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Ramires’ contention that the IJ

demonstrated bias because Hernandez-Ramires failed to raise it before the BIA. 

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring

exhaustion of claims before the BIA). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Hernandez-Ramires failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Hernandez-Ramires’ contention that the BIA’s order was inadequate fails

because the order contained “a statement of its reasons for denying [HernandezRamires] relief adequate for us to conduct our review.” See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d

1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
#### § 930.80 Compliance.

Except as provided in this part, no person may handle cherries, the handling of which has been prohibited by the Secretary under this part, and no person shall handle cherries except in conformity with the provisions of this part and the regulations issued hereunder. No person may handle any cherries for which a diversion certificate has been issued other than as provided in §§ 930.58(b) and 930.59(b).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE PARKER, #140 922, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06cv649-WHA

) (WO) 

GWENDOLYN GIVENS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the prior proceedings, opinions and orders of the Court, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and

against the Plaintiff.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter this document on the civil docket as a final

judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this 27th day April, 2009.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00649-WHA-WC Document 35 Filed 04/27/09 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.:

) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT

v. )

)

NORINCO a/k/a CHINA NORTH )

INDUSTRIES )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT QIQIHAR HAWK’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

COMES NOW one of the defendants, Qiqihar Hawk Industries Co., 

Ltd., and hereby moves the Court for leave to file a brief in 

reply to Plaintiff’s Memorandum Brief in Opposition to Qiqihar 

Hawk’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As grounds therefore, 

Qiqihar states as follows: 

1. On February 18, 2008, Qiqihar Hawk filed a joinder in 

Norinco’s Motion for Summary Judgment, by which joinder it 

expressly adopted and incorporated by reference Norinco’s 

motion, supporting brief and narrative summary of undisputed 

facts and evidentiary submission. (Doc. 76, Joinder ¶ 2.) By 

Order of February 20, 2008, the Court directed that said motion 

would be set for submission, without oral argument, on March 6, 

2008, with any opposing brief and evidentiary materials due by 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 85 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

said date. The Court’s order did not provide for the filing of 

any reply by Qiqihar Hawk. 

2. On March 6, 2008, the plaintiff submitted his 

opposition to Qiqihar Hawk’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

attempting to create a genuine issue of material fact on the 

question of whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a 

matter of law. Qiqihar Hawk submits that a careful reading of 

the undisputed material evidence – even taken in a light most 

favorable to the plaintiff – reveals that plaintiff was 

undeniably contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Qiqihar 

Hawk would request the opportunity to address in a reply brief

the supposed issues of fact raised by the plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Qiqihar Hawk 

respectfully requests leave to file a reply brief to plaintiff’s 

opposition to its motion for summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Todd Higey

Todd Higey

Ala. Bar No. HIG019

Attorney for Qiqihar Hawk 

Industries Co. Ltd.

RICHARDSONCLEMENT PC

200 Cahaba Park Circle, Suite 125

Birmingham, Alabama 35242

Telephone: (205) 572-4100

Fax: (205) 572-4199

E-mail: tmh@richardsonclement.com

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 85 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 7, 2008, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to the 

persons listed below:

David J. Hodge, Esq.

PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C.

2001 Park Place North

1100 Park Place Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

James C. Barton, Jr., Esq.

Alan D. Mathis, Esq.

JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & ROSE LLP

Colonial Brookwood Center

569 Brookwood Village, Suite 901

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Nick Wooten, Esq.

WOOTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.

P.O. Drawer 290

Lafayette, Alabama 36862

/s/Todd M. Higey

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 85 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 3 of 3
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6750

RYAN DARK WHITE, Name, as Attorney

- In

- Fact and representing the whole Class of Plaintiffs , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT; ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ; ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER; ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS; ROD ROSENSTEIN; DONNA HANSEN, Warden; LARRY HOGAN, Go vernor of the State of Maryland; MARTIN O’ MALLEY, Governor of the State of Maryland; UNNAM ED DEFENDANTS, 1

- 200 , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv

- 01355

- JKB )

Submitted : November 20, 2017 Decided: December 7, 2017

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ryan Dark White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ryan Dark White ap peals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See White v. United States , No. 1:17

- cv

- 01355

- JKB
(D. Md. Jun e 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

CurriculumDelivery SystemsElementary Secondary EducationFoster CareFoster ChildrenFoster FamilySocial Support GroupsTeacher RoleTeaching Methods

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 9 of 9
§ 1042.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

V. ) CIVIL ACTION: CV-2006-733-DRB

)

JOSEPH DONALD PRATHER and )

LINDA PRATHER, )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COMES NOW counsel for the Defendants, Stephen D. Heninger, and in response to the

Court’s Order to Show Cause why there have been no responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions, says as follows:

1. Co-counsel prepared responses to these Request for Admissions and attempted to file

them electronically. His office was notified that these were discovery matters and should not be

filed. Apparently, the office of Mr. Dillard did not send a copy to counsel for the Plaintiff. 

2. Now that we have discovered this error, counsel for the Defendants have issued 

responses and hand delivered them to counsel for the Plaintiff on May 23, 2007. 

s/Stephen D. Heninger 

Stephen D. Heninger

Attorney for Defendants

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC

P. O. Box 11310

Birmingham, Alabama 35205

(Telephone) 205.326.3336

(Facsimile) 205.326.3332

E-mail: Steve@hbvdlaw.com

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 27 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 24th day of May, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following:

Jennifer T. Dewees, Esq.

2001 Park Place North

Suite 911

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

205.251.9958

(Attorney for Cincinnati Insurance Company)

Timothy L. Dillard, Esq.

DILLARD & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.

Fourth Floor, Berry Building

2015 Second Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(Co-Counsel)

Steven Bullard

1405 16 Place th

Valley, Alabama 36854

Thomas Coleman, Jr., Esq.

SMITH, SPIRES & PEDDY, P.C.

2015 Second Avenue North Suite 200

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(Attorney for J. Smith Lanier Company)

s/Stephen D. Heninger 

Stephen D. Heninger

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 27 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 2