A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 10, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT NE S T E R C OM M E RC I AL RO OF I NG, IN C ., P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. AM E RI CA N B UI L DE RS AND C O N T R A C T O R S S U P P L Y C O . IN C .; M U L E -H ID E P R O D U C T S C O . IN C .,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6290 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 5 - 1 1 6 9 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

T hi s di ver s i t y -j ur i s di ct i on l aw s ui ts t ems fr om N es t erC om m er ci al R oofi ng, Inc . ’s pu rch ase o f ro o fin g m aterial fro m A m erican B u il d ers a n d C o n tr ac tors Suppl yC o. , I nc. ( A B C ) . T he mat er i al , M ul e- H i de A - 320, w as m anufa ctur ed by M ul e- H i de Pr oduct s , I nc. , a companyaff i l i at ed w i th A B C . A ft erN es t erappl i ed-2-

t he M ule- H i de A -320 to the roofs of several st ores ow ned byon e of it s cl i ents , t he r oofs l eake d. N es t err epai r ed the r oofs w i th a di ffe r entm at er i al , then s ued A B C and M ul e- H i de. A B C and M ul e- H i de defended on the gr ound thatN es t er h a d fa i l e d t o fo l l o w t h e a p p l i c a t i o n d i r e c t i o n s fo rth e M u l e - Hi d e A- 3 2 0 , a n d ABC count er cl ai m ed fors um s N es t erhad r efus ed t o payforthe r epl ace m entr oofi ng m a ter ial. T h e ju ryd e c id e d in fa v o r o f N e ste r o n its b re a c h -o f-e x p re ss -w a rra n ty c l a i m a n d fo rA B C o n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m . N e s t e ra p p e a l s s e v e r a l tr i a l ru l i n g s . We h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e A F F IR M . D is clai m erof

Impl i ed War r ant i es T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d e ffe c tiv e th e d isc laim e rs c o n tain e d o n th e b u c k e ts of M ul e- H i de A - 320 and gr ant ed defendant s a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on N es t er ’ s cl ai m s of br eac hes of the i m pl i ed w arr ant i es of fi tnes s fora part i cul ar purpos e and mer chant abi l i t y . N es t erar gues the courterr ed i n excl udi ng t he i m pl i ed w arr ant i es cl ai m s beca us e the di s cl ai m erl anguage w as not “cons pi cuous , ” as r equi r ed byO kl ahoma l aw . I tfur therar gues thatthe ques t i on of cons pi cuous nes s s houl d have be en dec i ded bythe j ury . “W e r evi ew de novo t he gr antof a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Weave rv. C havez , 458 F. 3d 1096, 1 0 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B ec au se th is m att er w as b rou g h t un d er the d istri ct co u rt ’s d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n , w e a p p ly th e la w o f th e fo ru m s ta te . B lanke v . A l exande r , 1 5 2 F . 3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).-3-

T he O kl ahoma U ni form C om m er ci al C ode es t abl i s hes the i m pl i ed w a rr a n tie s o f

m e rc h a n ta b ility a n d fitn e s s fo r a p a rt ic u la r p u rp o s e . See O k la. S tat. tit . 1 2 A , § 2 -3 1 4 (1 ) (“ U n les s e x c lu d e d o r m o d ified (S e c tio n 2 -3 1 6 ), a w a rra n ty t hatt he goods s hal l be mer chant abl e i s i m pl i ed i n a contr actforthei rs al e i f the se ller is a m e rc h a n t w ith re sp e c t to g o o d s o f th a t k in d .”); i d. , § 2- 315 ( “W her e the s el l eratt he t i m e of c ont r act i ng has r eas on t o know anypart i cul arpurpos e for w hi ch the goods ar e r equi r ed and thatthe buy eri s r el y i ng on the s el l er ’ s s ki l l or j udgm entt o s el ectorfurni s h s ui t abl e goods , ther e i s unl es s excl uded orm odi fi ed undert he nexts ect i on an i m pl i ed w arr antythatthe goods s hal l be fi tfors uch purpos e. ”) . A s t he s t atut es pl ai nl ys t at e, the i m pl i ed w arr ant i es m aybe exc l uded or m od i fi ed: for the im pli ed w arr antyof m erchantabi l i ty , “t he langu age m ust m ent i on m er chant abi l i t yand i n cas e of a w r i t i ng m us tbe cons pi cuous , ” and for t he i m pl i ed w arr antyof fi t nes s fora part i cul arpurpos e, “the exc l us i on m us tbe by a w r i t i ng and cons pi cuous . ” Id. , § 2- 316( 2) . W hethera di s cl ai m eri s cons pi cuous is a q u e s tio n o f

la w fo r t h e c o u rt . See i d. , § 1 -20 1 (b)(1 0 ). T h u s, the d istri ct co u rt d id n o t e rr b yn o t s u b m ittin g c o n s p ic u o u s n e s s to th e ju ry. T he bucke t s of M ul e- H i de A - 320 cont ai ned the fol l ow i ng l anguage i n bl ack i nk, j us tunderneath a gr aphi c i l l us tr at i ng t he w arni ng “D O N O T FR E E Z E ”: L im ited W a rra n ty A l l p r o d u c t s s o l d a r e s u bj e c tt o th e fo l l o w i n g l i m i t e d w a rr a n ty: M ULE- HI DE PRO DU CTS CO. , I NC . ( “ SELL ER” ) W AR RA NTS F OR A PE RI OD O F ONE ( 1 ) YEAR F ROM DATE OF DEL I VERY T HAT T HE P RO DUC T I S F RE E F RO M M ANUF AC T UR I NGI tappea r s t he tr i al exhi bi tdi s pl ay ed an e xpr es s w arr antys l i ght l ydi ffe r ent 1 th a n th a t s e t fo rt h o n th e b u c k e ts N e s te r a c tu a lly re c e iv e d . A p lt. A p p . a t 5 7 . B eca us e the l anguage excl udi ng t he i m pl i ed w arr ant i es w as t he s ame on al l t he bucket s , anydi ffe r ence s i n ot herpart s of the w arr antypar agr aph ar e notm at er i al to o u r a n a lysis . -4- DEFECTS. THE SELLER M AK ES NO OTH ER RE PRE SEN TA TI O N O R W A RR A N TY O F A N Y K I N D , EX PRE SS OR I M P L I E D, I N F AC T OR I N L AW, I NC L UDI NG WI T HOUT L I M I T AT I ON T HE WARR ANT Y OF M E RC HANT AB I L I T Y OR THE W AR RA NTY OF FI TNESS F OR A PA RTI CU LAR PURPOSE, O T H E R T H A N T H E L IM IT E D W A R R A N T Y S E T F O R T H A B O V E . E verycl ai m undert hi s w arr antys hal l be dee m ed w ai ved unl es s m ade i n w r i t i ng and r ece i ved bythe Sel l erw i thi n thi r ty( 30) day s of the dat e thatt he defectt o w hi ch ea ch cl ai m r el at es i s di s cover ed or sh o u ld h a v e b e e n d isc o v e re d . N o p e rso n is a u th o riz e d to a lter th is w a r r a n t y o r a l l y. A p lt. A p p . a t 3 2 . N e ste r c o n ten d s th is la n g u a g e is n o t co n sp icu o u s b e c a u se it i s 1 i n bl ack, and otherl anguage on the bucke t“i s i n r ed and farm or e ea s i l ynot i ced. ” A pl t . B r . at12. I tal s o poi nt s out“thatl anguage i s pl ace d among var i ous other non- appl i cat i on r el at ed w or ds . ” Id. at12- 13. T he O klahom a U nifor m C om m erci al C od e defi nes “co nspicuou s” as “s o w ritten , d isp layed , o r p re se n ted th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n a g a in st w h o m it i s to oper at e oughtt o have not i ced i t . ” O kl a. St at . t i t . 12A , § 1- 201( b) ( 10) . I n C ol l i ns R a d io C o . v. B e ll , t he O kl ahoma C our tof C i vi l A ppeal s s t at ed thatt her e ar e many fac t or s r el evantt o det erm i ni ng cons pi cuous nes s , “i ncl udi ng l ocat i on i n the c o n tra c t, typ e fa c e a n d typ e siz e , v a ria tio n in th e p rin tin g , len g th o f th e c o n tra c t, and the s ophi s t i cat i on of the buy er . ” 623 P. 2d 1039, 1050 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1 9 8 0 ). In th a t ca se , the c o u rt fo u n d th e d isc laim e r w a s c o n sp icu o u s:I n t hi s s ect i on of i t s openi ng br i ef, N es t eral s o r emar ks upon the di s tr i ct 2 cour t ’ s deci s i on t o l i m i texpr es s w arr antydamages . A pl t . B r . at8, 13. B ut N e s te r d o e s n o t s e t fo rt h a n a rg u m e n t o n th e is s u e , s o th e m a tte r i s w a iv e d . See A bercrom bie v. C i t

y of C atoosa , 8 9 6 F . 2 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). -5- It a p p e a rs o n th e re v e rse sid e o f a sin g le s h e e t co n tra c t. Ita p p e a rs in a ll ca p ital le tters in a se p a ra te p a ra g ra p h a n d is th e o n lylan g u a g e in capi t al s on t he page s ave the s ect i on headi ngs and the l i m i t at i on of r emedi es cl aus e. R efe r ence i s m ade on the fr ontt o the t erm s of the contr actappea r i ng on t he bac k. A l though the r efe r ence i s i n s m al l er typ e th a n a ll th e o th e r te rm s o n th e f ro n t p a g e o f

th e c o n tra c t, i t is ea sil yrea d , am p lysp ac ed , set o ff b yh o ri zo n tal li n es, an d ap p ea rs ju s t a b o v e th e s p a c e p ro v id e d fo r t h e b u y e r’ s s ig n a tu re . Id . a t 1 0 5 1 ; cf

. P . E . A . C . E . C or

p. v. O kla. Nat . G as C o. , 568 P. 2d 1273, 1278 (O k la. 1 9 7 7 ) (fin d in g d isc laim e r n o t co n sp icu o u s, in p a rt, b e c a u se it w a s n o t in c a p ita l le tte rs , a d iffe re n t s iz e typ e , o r a d iffe re n t c o lo r) . A s a m a tter o f

law , the d isc laim e r o n th e M u le- H id e A -3 2 0 b u c k e ts is c o n s p ic u o u s . It is e x p re s s e d in a s e p a ra te p a ra g ra p h e n title d “ L im ite d W a rr a n ty,” a n d th e e x c lu sio n o f

im p lied w a rra n ties is in a ll-ca p ital le tters . A lth o u g h it i s e n tirelyin b lac k a n d in sm a ller te x t th a n o th e r la b e lin g o n th e b u c k e t, i t “is e a sily r ead” and “a m pl ys pace d, ” and ther e i s nota l ar ge amountof othert exton the b u c k e t. C ol l i ns R adi o C o. , 623 P. 2d at1051. Fur ther , N es t er , as a comm er ci al roofi ng bu si ness r epresent ed b yan ex peri enced roofer/bu si nessm an, i s a so p h istica ted b u y e r o f p ro d u c ts s u c h a s M u le- H id e A -3 2 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt d id no terri n ex cl ud i ng N est er’ s i m pli ed-w arr antycl ai m s. 2-6- B r each of

C ontr act N e ste r a lso c o n ten d s th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in n o t allo w in g it t o p ro c e e d to t he j ur yw i t h a s epar at e br eac h of contr actcl ai m agai ns tA B C . N es t erar gues that i t s pr i nci pal , B i l l N es t er , expl ai ned t o A B C ’ s s al es m an the ci r cumst ance s of the j obs and the s al es m an r ecomm ended thatN es t erus e the M ul e- H i de A - 320; that t he M ul e- H i de A - 320 actual l yw as i nappr opr i at e forthe ci r cumst ance s ; and that N es t erw as i nj ur ed byus i ng t he M ul e- H i de A - 320 beca us e the cl i entno l onger us es N es t erfori t s r oofi ng j obs . T he di s tr i ctcour ts t at ed thatthe br eac h of contr actcl ai m w oul d notgo t o t he j urybeca us e i n i t s pr e- tr i al fi l i ngs N es t erhad n o t m a d e a n yd istin c tio n b e tw e e n A B C a n d M u le- H id e , ins tea d re fe rrin g to defe ndant s col l ect i vel y . A s w i t h the i m pl i ed w arr ant i es cl ai m , ourr evi ew i s de n o v o a n d r e l i e s o n Ok l a h o ma l a w. E v e n if th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in its ra tio n a le fo r n o t allo w in g th e c laim , it w as notr ever s i bl e err or . T hes e fa ct s do notes t abl i s h a cl ai m forbr eac h of contr actt hati s s epar at e ordi s t i ngui s habl e fr om cl ai m s of br eac h of the i m pl i ed w arr antyof m er chant abi l i t yand i m pl i ed w arr antyof fi tnes s fora part i cul ar purpos e. T he fa ct s des cr i bed ar e a qui nt es s ent i al exampl e of c i r cumst ance s u n d e rl y in g a c la im fo r b re a c h o f th o s e im p lie d w a rr a n tie s . S e e , e . g . , A m. Fer t i l iz erSpeci al is ts , Inc. v. Wood , 635 P. 2d 592, 594- 95 ( O kl a. 1981) . A nd N es t ercoul d notpur s ue a br eac h- of- i m pl i ed- w arr antycl ai m agai ns tA B C forthe s ame r eas on i tcoul d notpur s ue s uch cl ai m s agai ns tM ul e- H i de; namel y , anFur t her , t o t he ext entN es t ers oughtt o pur s ue thi s cl ai m t o r ecove rdamages 3 forl os tpr ofi t s , w e not e thatA B C ’ s pur chas e agr eementcont ai ns a di s cl ai m erof cons equent i al and i nci dent al damages . A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at161. O kl ahoma l aw perm i t s t he l i m i t at i on orexcl us i on of cons equent i al damages . O kl a. St at . A nn. tit . 1 2 A , § 2 -7 1 9 (3 ); C ol l i ns R adi o C o. , 623 P. 2d at1051. Itis no t cl ea r w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtp rec lud ed the C P A ’s ex p ert 4 tes tim o n yb e c a u se N e ste r h a d n o t d e c lar e d h im a s a n e x p e rt w itn e ss , b e c a u se it (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- effect i ve di s cl ai m er . A B C ’ s pur chas e contr actcont ai ns a di s cl ai m erof the i m pl i ed w arr ant i es of m er chant abi l i tyand fi tnes s fora part i cul arpurpos e. A pl ee. S up p. A pp . at16 1. T he d i scl ai m er appears on t he reverse of a on e-page p urchase agr eement , w hi ch cont ai ns on t he fi r s tpage a r efe r ence t o the t erm s on the r ever s e; i ti s s etfor t h i n a s epar at e par agr aph, i ti s eas i l yr ead, and ampl ys pace d; and the di s cl ai m erpor t i on of the par agr aph i s pr i nt ed i n al l - capi t al l et t er s , unl i ke a n yo th e r t e x t o n th e p a g e s a v e th e h e a d in g . Id. U nderthe pr i nci pl es of C ol l i ns , w e fin d th e d is c la im e r t o b e c o n s p ic u o u s . See 623 P. 2d at1051. A l l ow i ng N es t er to p re se n t it s p ro p o se d “ b re a c h o f c o n tra c t” c laim a g a in st A B C w o u ld e v isc e ra te t he di s cl ai m erof i m pl i ed w arr ant i es . A ccor di ngl y , ther e i s no bas i s forr ever s i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on nott o al l ow the cl ai m t o pr ocee d. 3 Exper tTes t i m ony Fi nal l y , N es t ercont ends t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n excl udi ng the t es t i m ony o f it s ce rt ifi ed p u b li c a cc o u n tant as to N ester’s lost pro fit s. T h e d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned thatt he C PA coul d pr ovi de onl ynon- expertt es t i m onybeca us e he ha d notbeen l i s t ed as an expe r tw i t nes s orpr ovi ded an e xpertr eport . W e r evi ew t he 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 h a d n o t p ro v id e d a n e x p e rt re p o rt , o r fo r b o th re a s o n s . See A p lt. A p p . at 6 6 (in s um m ar i zi ng i t s pr i orrul i ng forthe r ecor d, the courts t at ed, “I l efti tup t o the P lai n ti ff ’s co u n sel t o ask ap p rop ri ate q u esti o n s tha t w o u ld n o t el ici t exp ert tes tim o n y , b e c a u se M r. C h a in w a s n o t d e c lar e d a s a n e x p e rt w itn e ss ” ); i d. at48- 4 9 ( i n o bj e c t i n g t o e x p e r tt e s t i mo n yd u r i n g tr i a l , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l s t a t e d , “ He coul d t es t i fyas t o t he t ax r etur ns he pr epar ed, butw oul d notbe al l ow ed t o gi ve expertt es t i m onybeca us e he ha d notbeen l i s t ed as an expe r t , had notpr ovi ded an expertr eport . I under s t ood t hatt o be the rul i ng on the mot i on i n l i m i ne. ”) . I n an abu nd ance o f cau t i on , w e analy ze t he is sue un der both reas on s. -8- d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d m i to re x c l u d e e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y, fo r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . R als t on v. Sm i th & Nephew R i char ds , Inc. , 275 F. 3d 96 5, 96 8 (10th C i r. 20 01 ). “A t ri al cou rt ’s decis i on w i l l no tbe d i sturbed u nles s t hi s C our thas a def

i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe tr i al cour thas m ade a cl ear err orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n the ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. at 96 8 -69 (qu o tat ion an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). N e ste r a rg u e s th a t “[ t]h e u n d e rly in g q u e stio n a s to w h e th e r M r. C h a in s houl d have be en al l ow ed t o offe raddi t i onal t es t i m onyi n hi s r ol e as an ac t i ng C .P .A . is w h e th e r h e w a s re ta in e d in a n tic ip a tio n o f litig a tio n .” A p lt. B r. a t 1 4 . N e ste r is c o rre c t th a t, be c a u se th e C P A w a s n o t re tain e d o r sp e c iallye m p lo y e d to pr ovi de expe r tt es t i m ony , Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( a) ( 2) ( B ) di d not re q u ir e h im to p ro v id e a n e x p e rt re p o rt . See W ats on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 485 F. 3d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I tdoes notfol l ow , how ever , thatN es t ercoul d al s o negl ectt o i dent i fythe C PA as an expe r tw i t nes s i f i tw i s hed hi m t o t es t i fyt o m at t er s i nvol vi ng-9-

“ s c ie n tific , te c h n ic a l, o r o th e r s p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e .” F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2 . Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( a) ( 2) ( A ) s t at es “a pa r tys hal l di s cl os e t o ot her par t i es t he i dent i t yof any pers on w ho m aybe us ed attr i al t o pr es entevi dence u n d e r R u le s 7 0 2 , 7 0 3 , o r 7 0 5 o f th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e ” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T hi s rul e does notdi s t i ngui s h betw een e xpertw i tnes s es r et ai ned i n ant i ci pat i on of l i t i ga t i on a nd othe re xp e r tw i t ne s s e s . A s the di s tr i c tc ou r tr e c og ni z e d, the CPA n e e d n o t b e listed a s a n e x p e rt to tes tifyto h is p e rso n a l k n o w led g e o f e v e n ts re le v a n t to th e litig a tio n . See United S tates v. C ab allero , 277 F. 3d 1235, 1247 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (“[W ]i tnes ses n ee d n o t t esti fyas e x p erts si m p lyb ec au se th eyare expert s –t he natur e and obj ectof thei rt es t i m onydet erm i nes w hetherthe pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons of R ul e 702 appl y . ”) . B uti f N es t erw i s hed i t s C PA t o gi ve e x p e rt te s tim o n y , it s h o u ld h a v e d is c lo s e d h im a s a n e x p e rt w itn e s s . See Bank of Chi na , New YorkBr an c h v . NB MLLC , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 7 1 , 1 8 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Mus s er v. G enti va Health S ervs. , 3 5 6 F .3 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 6 -5 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); compar e Wats on , 485 F. 3d at1108 n. 5 ( not i ng t hatpl ai nt i ff ha d the oppor tuni tyt o depos e the expertw i t nes s w i t h “ful l know l edge thatthe governm enti nt ended t o cal l hi m as an expe r tw i t nes s ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by re s tr ic tin g c o u n s e l’ s a b ility to e lic it e x p e rt te s tim o n yf ro m N e s te r’ s C P A . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 3 7 (c )(1 ) (“ A p a rtyth a t w ith o u t su b sta n tial in fo rm a tio n fa ils to d isc lo se in fo rm a tio n re q u ire d b yR u le 2 6 (a ) . . . is n o t, un les s s u c h fa ilu re is harm l ess, perm i t t ed to use as evi den ce attri al . . . any. . . i nfo rm at i on no tso-10-

d isc lo se d .”); Si m s v. G r eatA m . Li f e Ins . C o. , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 8 7 0 , 8 9 4 -95 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( hol di ng t hatdi s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yexcl uded expe r tw i tnes s w ho w as not tim e lyd e sig n a ted ); Mus s er , 356 F. 3d at757- 60 ( hol di ng thatdi s tr i ctcour tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng expertt es t i m onybeca us e partyl acke d s ubs t ant i al justi fica ti o n fo r disclos ing w itn esse s u n d er R u le 26 (a)(1) b u t no t R u le 26 (a)(2)). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge