alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39654-39655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0670]

Proposed Legal Interpretation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed interpretation; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012 at 77 FR 32441, the FAA published a proposed 
legal interpretation in which the agency considered clarifying prior 
legal interpretations regarding pilot in command discretion under 14 
CFR

[[Page 39655]]

121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4). The agency inadvertently assigned an 
incorrect docket number to the proposed legal interpretation. This 
document corrects the docket number. Any comments submitted to docket 
number FAA-2011-0045 regarding the proposed legal interpretation 
published at 77 FR 32441 will be moved to the correct docket, FAA-2012-
0670.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Mikolop, Attorney, Regulations 
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-
3073.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-13290, on 
page 32441, in the third column, in the heading, correct the docket 
number to read:

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0670]

    Also, on page 32441, in the third column, correct the ADDRESSES 
caption to read:

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0670 using any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and 
follow the online instructions for sending your comments 
electronically.
    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building 
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket Operations in 
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2012.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-16342 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
SERVED: APRIL 1, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

WOOLPERT LLC DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0211 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013EA250068) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 TEL: 301-294-8550 FAX: 301-568-9886 Dan Kohlmeyer, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration · Office ofthe Regional Counsel 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3266 FAX: 718-533-5699 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-0211 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. MaiL For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
VIRGINIA SOCTETY FOR HUMAN LIFE, [SCORPORATED

v.

IUDGMENT.
FILED: September 17, 2001

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the
Fourth Circuit ie
S
=
— 3
35
— gz
NO. 00-1252 2° or
. Fad an Ss
CA-99-559 ~o fess
== c=}
=

Plaintiff - Appellee

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

v.

Defendant - Appellant

NO. 00-1332
CA-99-559

«VIRGINIA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN LIFE. [NCORPORATED

Plaintiff - Appellant

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

day,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal

from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond

In accordance with the written opinion of this Court filed this

the Court

affirms in part. vacates in part and remands the

QSAI3 93%


judgment of the District Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

CLERK

us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_____________________________________________________________________

 

ROBERT BOLES,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-14074

DARNELL JACKSON,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Order Summarily Dismissing Case, Denying

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and Denying Motion to Strike” dated June

30, 2015,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendant Darnell Jackson and against Plaintiff Robert Boles. Dated at Detroit,

Michigan, this 30th day of June 2015.

 DAVID J. WEAVER

 CLERK OF THE COURT

S/ Lisa Wagner 

By: Lisa Wagner, Case Manager

 to Judge Robert H. Cleland

2:14-cv-14074-RHC-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 125
#### § 126.100 Inspector not limited.

Nothing in this part shall be construed as limiting the inspector from making such tests or inspections as he or she deems necessary to be assured of the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel.

[CGD 82-004 and CGD 86-074, 62 FR 49324, Sept. 19, 1997, as amended by USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3224, Jan. 21, 2022]
SERVED: APRIL 1, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WOOLPERT LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0211 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013EA250068) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J .E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-568-9886 

Dan Kohlmeyer, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration · 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3266 

FAX: 718-533-5699 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0211 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. MaiL For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JENNY WONG and 

MICHAEL CHUNG, 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-13798 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT LLC et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

In accordance with the Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary 

Judgment, dated February 13, 2017, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of 

Defendants and against Plaintiffs. 

 DAVID J. WEAVER 

 CLERK OF COURT 

 By: s/Holly A. Monda 

 Deputy Clerk 

Approved: 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

United States District Judge 

Dated: February 13, 2017 

Detroit, Michigan 

2:14-cv-13798-MFL-MKM Doc # 105 Filed 02/13/17 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2459
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CARROL Y. CHERRY EATON,

Appellant,

v.

JACOB SCHIELE EATON,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2236

[March 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Merrilee Ehrich, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-11774.

Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 15.520 Mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs). ( a ) The requirements in this section for MODUs supplement other requirements in this part.
( b ) The OCMI determines the minimum number of officers and crew (including lifeboatmen) required for the safe operation of inspected MODUs. In addition to other factors listed in this part, the specialized nature of the MODU is considered in determining the specific manning levels.
( c ) A license or officer endorsement on an MMC as offshore installation manager (OIM), barge supervisor (BS), or ballast control operator (BCO) authorizes service only on MODUs. A license or endorsement as OIM is restricted to the MODU type and mode of operation specified on the credential.
( d ) When underway, a self-propelled MODU, other than a drillship, must be under the command of an individual who holds a license as master endorsed as OIM, or an MMC endorsed as master and OIM. When not underway, such a vessel must be under the command of an individual holding the appropriate OIM credential.
( e ) A drillship must be under the command of an individual who holds a license or MMC officer endorsement as master. When a drillship is on location, or is maintaining its position with a dynamic positioning system, the individual in command must hold a license as master endorsed as OIM or an MMC with master and OIM officer endorsements.
( f ) A non-self-propelled MODU must be under the command of an individual who holds a license or MMC officer endorsement as OIM.
( g ) An individual serving as mate on a self-propelled surface unit when underway, other than a drillship, must hold an appropriate license, or an MMC endorsed as mate and BS or BCO. When not underway, such a vessel may substitute an individual holding the appropriate BS or BCO endorsement for the mate, if permitted by the cognizant OCMI.
( h ) An individual holding a license or MMC officer endorsement as BS is required on a non-self-propelled surface unit other than a drillship.
( i ) An individual holding a license or MMC officer endorsement as BS may serve as BCO.
( j ) The OCMI issuing the MODU's COI may authorize the substitution of chief or assistant engineer (MODU) for chief or assistant engineer, respectively, on self-propelled or propulsion-assisted surface units, except drillships. The OCMI may also authorize the substitution of assistant engineer (MODU) for assistant engineer on drillships.
( k ) Requirements in this part concerning radar observers do not apply to non-self-propelled MODUs.
( l ) A surface MODU underway or on location, when afloat and equipped with a ballast control room, must have that ballast control room manned by an individual holding a license or MMC officer endorsement authorizing service as BCO.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78003, Dec. 24, 2013]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DEBORAH BISHOP, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2048 ) DAVIS REED and IMPERI CORP., ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge. Christopher E. Hewitt and Scott A. Kuhn of Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant. Ronald W. Gregory, II, of Gregory Law Firm, P.L., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
### SERVE D JUN E23 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH EMATTE RO F EMPIR EAIRWAYS , Responden t FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 1 ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S ORDE RDISMISSIN G PROCEEDIN GAN D CANCELLIN GHEARIN G Counse l for

th e Complainan t

ha s file damotio nt o withdra w th e complain t "withou t prejudice. " H e say s tha t th e agenc y ha s bee ninforme d tha t th e party name da s Responden t i nth e complain t

di dno t operat e an d maintai n th e aircraf

t in question . H e als o say s tha t th e purpos e o f

th e withdrawa l o f

th e complain t

i s t o allo w th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n t o initiat e th e cas e ane w agains t anothe r party . I canno t an dd o no t

promis e tha t

th e Complainant' s cas e agains t a thir dparty ( acas e I d o no t hav e before me ) wil l no t b e prejudice db y th e fac t tha t th e Complainan t

file dthi s cas e agains t

Empir e Airways . Th e cas e agains t th e thir dparty doe s no t

exis t and , i nany event , i s no t

assigne dt o me . If , for example , th e statut e o f

limitation s o n prosecutio no f th e thir dparty expire dwhil e thi s cas e wa s befor e me , dismissal o f thi s cas e ma y b e sai dt o "prejudice " th e interest s o f th e FAA . Ther e i s nothin g I ca nd o abou t that , an dcounse l for

th e FA A wil l jus t

hav e t o tak e hi s chances . Al l tha t I cand o no w i s t o follo w th e dictat e o f §13.21 5 o f

th e Procedura l Rules , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 an ddismis s thi s cas e withprejudice . I no w d o so .ilUMiiiiiMiMiii i



### Th e hearin g schedule dto begin o n Augus t 12 , 201 0 i s cancelled . I T I S S O ORDERED .

Isaac D . Benkin Administrativ e La

w Judg eFA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Charle s J . Casolaro , Respondent' s Counse l Casolar o Sussman , LL P 105 0 Frankli n Avenue , Suit e 40 2 Garde n City , N Y 1153 0 TEL : 516-248-139 9 FAX : 516-248-225 7 Zachary M . Berman , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-043 7 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e th

e following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ 

)

JULIETTE YOLANDA WHITTED, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 19-cv-370 (APM)

)

)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Juliette Whitted, proceeding pro se, brings this action challenging the denial of 

disability benefits and supplemental security income. See Compl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter 

Compl.]. Regrettably, her action is time-barred and must be dismissed. 

A person contesting a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security must 

commence such action “within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or 

within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

The agency’s regulations add five days to the 60-day statutory period to account for a person’s 

receipt of notice sent by mail. See 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c); Ducusin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 650 

F. Supp. 2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2009) (observing that, “[i]n effect, [§ 422.210(c)] alters the statutory 

filing period for all litigants—the 60–day period commences not on the date of the notice, but on 

the date of the plaintiff’s receipt of the notice”). Thus, to be timely, a claimant has to initiate suit 

within 65 days of the notice’s date of mailing. 

In this case, Plaintiff filed her action too late. After an administrative law judge denied 

Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. See Mot. 
2

to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 6, Decl. of Michael Sampson, ECF No. 6-2, ¶ 3(a). The Appeals 

Council mailed its decision on November 13, 2018. Id. Thus, Plaintiff had to file her case within 

65 days of that date, or January 17, 2019. But she did not do so, instead filing almost a month later 

on February 13, 2019. See Compl. 

Although Plaintiff made multiple filings after Defendant moved to dismiss, none responded 

substantively to the limitations argument. See ECF Nos. 8–11. The court therefore has no basis 

before it on which to consider equitably tolling. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 

479 (1986) (stating that the 60-day time limit must be “strictly construed” as “a condition on the 

waiver of sovereign immunity”). Plaintiff’s action is therefore time-barred. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. A separate final 

order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 

 

Dated: November 14, 2019 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Court Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7145

RUSSELL S. EVERETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections; DONALD R. GUILLORY, Warden,

Powhatan Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-853-AM)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell S. Everett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform

Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find that this

appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Everett v. Angelone, No. CA-96-

853-AM (E.D. Va. June 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****Chart: 12244          Edition: 14          Edition Date: October 2011          Clear Dates: NM - 12/17/2011     LNM - 12/13/2011**Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart Site-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NOAA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20627 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

D-3 MARCOS DELGADO, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On July 12, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on July 12, 

2016, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The failure to file objections waives any 

right to appeal the magistrate judge’s findings that Defendant was competent to enter a plea, and 

that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, without coercion, and with a basis in fact. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 88, is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 87, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Case 1:14-cr-20627-TLL-PTM ECF No. 95, PageID.373 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 2
Dated: July 28, 2016 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on July 28, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

Case 1:14-cr-20627-TLL-PTM ECF No. 95, PageID.374 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 2