alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.134 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.135 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.136 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.137 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.138 Filed 12/12/16 Page 5 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.139 Filed 12/12/16 Page 6 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.140 Filed 12/12/16 Page 7 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.141 Filed 12/12/16 Page 8 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.142 Filed 12/12/16 Page 9 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.143 Filed 12/12/16 Page 10 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.144 Filed 12/12/16 Page 11 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.145 Filed 12/12/16 Page 12 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.146 Filed 12/12/16 Page 13 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.147 Filed 12/12/16 Page 14 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.148 Filed 12/12/16 Page 15 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.149 Filed 12/12/16 Page 16 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.150 Filed 12/12/16 Page 17 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.151 Filed 12/12/16 Page 18 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.152 Filed 12/12/16 Page 19 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.153 Filed 12/12/16 Page 20 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.154 Filed 12/12/16 Page 21 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.155 Filed 12/12/16 Page 22 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.156 Filed 12/12/16 Page 23 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.157 Filed 12/12/16 Page 24 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.158 Filed 12/12/16 Page 25 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.159 Filed 12/12/16 Page 26 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.160 Filed 12/12/16 Page 27 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.161 Filed 12/12/16 Page 28 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.162 Filed 12/12/16 Page 29 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.163 Filed 12/12/16 Page 30 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.164 Filed 12/12/16 Page 31 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.165 Filed 12/12/16 Page 32 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.166 Filed 12/12/16 Page 33 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.167 Filed 12/12/16 Page 34 of 35
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW ECF No. 31, PageID.168 Filed 12/12/16 Page 35 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JAMIEL VAUGHN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10907

STEVEN TOWNSEND,

Defendant.

/

ORDER REQUIRING CONSULTATION

On November 20, 2015 the court was to hold a status conference with the parties

to this litigation. The notice for that status conference stated in all capital letters that the

conference was to be held in “THE US DISTRICT COURT IN PORT HURON, MI.” (Dkt.

# 15.) As he was directed, counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Randall Upshaw, appeared at

the district court in Port Huron. No representative for the Defendant appeared at the

status conference, apparently because of counsel’s failure to read the notice posted to

ECF. Instead, Mr. Patrick Cunningham, one of Defendant’s attorneys of record and

counsel at the City of Detroit Law Department, appeared 50 miles away, at the district

court in Detroit.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(A) gives federal courts the authority to

issue sanctions “on motion or on its own . . . if a party or its attorney fails to appear at a

scheduling or other pretrial conference.” Specifically, a court may order the offending

party “to pay the reasonable expenses . . . incurred because of any noncompliance.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2). Upon the court’s request, Mr. Upshaw informed the court that

his travel time and court appearance totaled approximately three hours.

2:15-cv-10907-RHC-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 69
The court’s notice was clear and unambiguous, and Mr. Upshaw expended

considerable time in traveling to Port Huron for the status conference. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the City of Detroit Law Department shall MEET AND

CONFER, either in person or by telephone, with counsel for Plaintiff on the question of

the needless expenditure of Plaintiff’s counsel’s time, and both counsel shall attempt to

resolve the question by agreement. Defendant’s counsel shall make every reasonable

effort, before the final pretrial conference scheduled for Monday, February 1, 2016,

to file a notice that such meeting has been accomplished and if agreement resulted.

The details of any such agreement need not be revealed. In the event that no

agreement is reached, Defendant’s counsel shall so state. The court will thereafter take

such action as appears appropriate at that time. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 29, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, January 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\15-10907.VAUGHN.sanction.smq.RHC.v2.wpd

2

2:15-cv-10907-RHC-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 70
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00815

- CV

IN RE Monica Martinez RAMIREZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Mar ialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On November 21 , 2018

, this court denied r elator ’s petition for writ of mandamus. On

December 4, 2018, relator filed a motion requesting en banc reconsideration. After considering

the motion, relator’s motion is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on December 6, 2018

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand a nd affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2004EM5

- 00428, styled In the Int erest of M.J.A., A Child , pending in the

407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Richard Price presiding.
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.403 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.404 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.405 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.406 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.407 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.408 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.409 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.410 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.411 Filed 04/07/15 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.412 Filed 04/07/15 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.413 Filed 04/07/15 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-10, PageID.414 Filed 04/07/15 Page 12 of 12
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoundView Technology Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gerard P. Maus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|Dated: August 14, 2003 |  | SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|                       |  | By:                             

---

QuickLinks
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITAT~ON OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT,... 77 FR 59924 

(October 1, 2012) 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY. OCTOBER 4, 2012 AT 10:00 A.M. 

PLACE: 

STATUS: 

999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR) 

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING -The following items have been added to the agenda: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-32: Tea Party Leadership Fund, Mr. John Raese 

and Mr. Sean Bielat 

Consideration of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (September 

20, 2012) Order in Van Hollen v. FEC 

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead 

Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date. 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer 

Telephone: (202) 694-1220 

Signed: 

Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary of the Commission 

Submitted: October 1, 2012
#### MAX BROWN, LENA BROWN AND HARRY KRITZER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BESSIE LEFKOWITZ AND FANNIE WASSERMAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided April 22, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellants, *Samuel Weitzman.*

For the respondents, *Milton M. TJnger.*

Per Curiam.

This was an action in the First District Court of Newark to recover the amount of a judgment for $500 theretofore recovered against the plaintiffs by a former tenant. The liability under which the plaintiffs’ claim was made was predicated on the following facts: A lease was made by the Colonial Garage and Service Company to one Snyder, dated May 9th, 1927, at the yearly rental of $6,000 for the period of five years. At the time of the making of the lease Snyder, the tenant, made a deposit of $1,200 as security for the faithful performance, of the terms of the lease. This lease was assigned to the plaintiff Brown and his wife, together with the $1,200 deposit.

On October 25th, 1927, Brown and his wife conveyed to Kritzer, and on the following day took an agreement from him whereby he assumed any liability which might,exist on *425the deposit. On November 2d, a few days later, Kritzer conveyed to the defendants in this action and in this deed this language is used: “The party of the second part does hereby assume any liability which may exist in favor of any tenant of the premises by reason of the sum of $1,200, deposit under the terms of a lease dated May 9th, 1927, made by Colonial Garage and Service Company to Snyder.”

In the meantime, on October 27th, 1927, Brown had served a notice on Snyder to quit the premises and Snyder moved out November 1st. Snyder then brought suit against Brown and wife to recover a portion of the $1,200 and got a judgment of $500 for which this action is brought. The record of that case was offered in evidence and the judge gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant appeals and urges several grounds for reversal. The first is that the plaintiffs submitted no evidence that the tenant was liable to the Browns when the judgment was recovered and that the judgment itself was insufficient to even make out a *prima facie*case of liability in the absence of the defendant as a surety being made a party or of notice of the trial. There are many authorities holding the rule to be that where the surety is not made a party the judgment is *prima facie*evidence against the surety of the liability on which it is predicated. 21 *R. G. L.*1088, where cases are cited, including those in the Supreme Court of the United States which, in decisions ending with *Moses*v. *United States,*166 *U. S.*571, has so held. It is not necessary to pass on the point, however, as it appears in the record that the -defendant was apprised of the action and that his counsel appeared at the trial of the ease.

The remaining points do not call for discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.
§ 30.10-25 Flame screen—TB/ALL. The term *flame screen* means a fitted single screen of corrosion-resistant wire of at least 30 by 30 mesh, or two fitted screens, both of corrosion-resistant wire, of at least 20 by 20 mesh, spaced not less than 1 ⁄ 2 inch or more than 11 ⁄ 2 inches apart.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1A
                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements 
of AXENT Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1996, 
and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which 
financial statements are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have 
also audited the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14 herein.

        In our opinion, this financial statement schedule, when considered in 
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information required to be included herein.

Washington, D.C.
January 28, 1997
                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEROME HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL BOLF and SHEILA CLIFTON, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-10717 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DAVID R. GRAND

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] AND DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 On October 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation [14], recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 

without prejudice for failure to timely effectuate service. Plaintiff has filed no 

objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court having reviewed the 

record, the Report and Recommendation [14] is hereby ADOPTED and entered as 

the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: Senior United States District Judge 

2:15-cv-10717-AJT-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 11/13/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 34
SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE1

2022 MT 128, DA 21-0605: BOARD OF REGENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, Petitioner and Appellee, v. THE STATE OF 

MONTANA, by and through Austin Knudsen, in his official capacity as Attorney 

General of the State of Montana, Respondent and Appellant.

The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that the Montana Board of Regents has the sole 

authority to set policy regarding the possession of firearms on the Montana University 

System property.

The unanimous Court held that the Montana Constitution specifically provides that 

government and control of the university system is vested in the Board of Regents, who 

shall have “full power, responsibility and authority to supervise, manage, and control” 

Montana’s universities and colleges.

This case arises from House Bill 102 (HB 102), enacted by the 2021 Legislature, which 

generally revised gun laws with respect to open and concealed carry of firearms. As it 

relates to the Board of Regents (Board) and the Montana University System (MUS), 

HB 102 nullified a Board policy that limited the use of and access to firearms on MUS 

campuses (Board Policy 1006). 

The Board sought a declaration from the District Court that HB 102 was unconstitutional 

as applied to the Board, the MUS, and the campuses of the MUS, because the Board was 

constitutionally vested with full responsibility to manage and control the MUS and its 

properties. The State argued that the Board did not have exclusive authority to regulate 

firearms on campuses. The District Court concluded that HB 102 violated the Board’s 

constitutional authority to regulate MUS campuses and thus was unconstitutional as 

applied to the Board. The State appealed.

Answering the narrow issue on appeal—the scope of the Board’s authority—the Court held 

that campus safety and security is an integral responsibility of the Board of Regents’ 

constitutional authority.

 

1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the 

Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent.

06/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0605
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 2, 1998 accompanying the financial 
statements included in the Annual report of ModaCAD, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for 
the year ended December 31, 1997. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of ModaCAD, Inc. on 
Forms S-8 (#333-35987, dated September 19, 1997), S-3 (#333-26349, dated 
June 18, 1997). S-3 (#333-26691, dated June 18, 1997) and S-8 (#333-21775, 
dated February 14, 1997).



SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP
Los Angeles, California
March 18, 1998
# C_2013063EN.01000602.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

(Case C-23/12) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity - Effective judicial protection - Right of access to a court)

2013/C 63/09

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — Right of appeal of third country nationals in relation to a refusal of entry — Action seeking to have declared unlawful the conduct of border officials during the procedure to authorise the crossing of an external border — Compensation for the non-material harm incurred as a result of such unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) obliges Member States to establish a means of obtaining redress only against decisions to refuse entry.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

      Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                   ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of
the Quarterly Report of ComBanc, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Jason R. Thornell, Controller of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Company.



/s/ Jason R. Thornell
------------------------------------
Jason R. Thornell, Controller

August 12, 2002



                                       15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-10993 

Plaintiff, District Judge Victoria A. Roberts 

vs. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

UNIVERSAL REHAB SERVICES, INC., 

PHYSIOFLEX, P.L.L.C., 

SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, P.L.L.C., 

DAVID JANKOWSKI, D.O., and 

AHMAD T. ABULABON, P.T., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER REGARDING THE UNIVERSAL DEFENDANTS’ E-MAIL 

REQUESTS FOR AN ADDITIONAL FED. R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION 

AND AN EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 30, 2016 DISCOVERY DEADLINE

 To deal with the above-referenced requests, on June 19, 2017, the Court 

conducted a telephonic status conference on the record, at which attorneys Kathy P. 

Josephson, Marla A. Linderman, and Gary R. Blumberg appeared. After hearing 

the arguments of counsel for the parties, and for the reasons stated on the record, 

which are incorporated by this reference as though fully restated herein, the Court 

concludes as follows: 

1. The Universal Defendants’ request, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(a)(2)(A)(ii) to conduct an additional 30(b)(6) deposition of 

Plaintiff regarding the counterclaim is DENIED. 
2 

2. The Universal Defendants’ request for an extension of the 

deadline for obtaining fact discovery pertaining to its 

counter-claims is GRANTED, with the extension being given 

through Monday, July 30, 2017. Until then, the Universal 

Defendants may depose adjusters: David Ward and Mario 

Thomas (each of Michigan); Jason Hogge (of Arizona), Carolyn 

Ikens (of Washington); and Shannon Trumbell (of Texas). The 

scope of the Universal Defendants’ questions at these 

depositions is limited to their counterclaims, and they may 

conduct the depositions of these individuals by telephone or 

Skype. Counsel for any of the other parties may attend these 

depositions, in person or remotely, and ask any necessary follow 

up questions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 20, 2017 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on June 20, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti