alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59461.

protest 259514-K (New York).

#### E. Tabasso & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record disclosing nothing that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 32.2 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Annual Report of Powder River Petroleum International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery Johnson, Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: April 14, 2008 /S/Jeffery Johnson Jeffery Johnson Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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

     The undersigned, Donald Walker, the Chief Executive Officer of
Cimbix Corporation (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY 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 Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September 30, 2004 (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 operations of the
Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 11th
day of February, 2005.


                                  By:  /s/ Donald Walker
                                  --------------------------------
                                           Donald Walker,
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARK G. THOMPSON,

Appellant/Cross Appellee,

v. Case No. 5D15-2152

ALVARO E. AVILA,

Appellee/Cross Appellant.

________________________________/

Decision filed March 31, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.

Caryn L. Bellus, and Barbara E. Fox, of 

Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellant/Cross Appellee.

Ramsey Smathers of the Law Offices of 

Ramsey Smathers, P.A., Winter Park, Shea 

T. Moxon, of Brannock & Humphries, 

Tampa, and Michael V. Barszcz, of Law 

Offices of Michael V. Barszcz, M.D., J.D., 

Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, dissents with opinion.
2

5D15-2152

JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, dissenting.

This case is before us on an appeal from a negligence case in which Appellee, 

Alvaro Avila, obtained a verdict for $1.9 million. The verdict included $1,330,385.90 for 

future pain and suffering. The trial court issued a remittitur of the future pain and suffering 

damages by reducing the amount to $250,000. The remittitur was not accepted by either 

party. Accordingly, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of future pain and 

suffering damages. The majority affirms the ruling by the order for a new trial on noneconomic damages. I would reverse and remand for reinstatement of the verdict. The 

jury heard all the testimony regarding Appellee, Mr. Avila, and determined that his 

damages were $1.9 million, including the amount they found for future pain and suffering. 

A jury has wide latitude on the determination of damages. Rety v. Green, 546 So. 2d 410 

(Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Unless there is something that influences the jury outside the record, 

in my view, this verdict should stand. See Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 

409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982). The amount of damages in a civil case are well within the 

province of the jury. A verdict is not necessarily excessive because it is above the amount 

the court considered a jury should have allowed. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 

(Fla. 1977). “The verdict should not be disturbed unless it is so inordinately large as 

obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may 

properly operate.” Id. at 1184. 

I would reverse the order granting a new trial and remand to the trial court to 

reinstate the jury verdict.
*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. 98-30529

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MICHAEL E. HOLOWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES TRIOLA; GARY TRIOLA; SCHEUERMANN

& JONES, STEPHEN ARMBRUSTER; LAWRENCE

BLAKE JONES; PATRICIA HEDGES, Judge; JANE TRIOLA,

Defendants-Appellees..

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-2216-N)

_______________________________________________________

February 2, 1999

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael E. Holoway appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his section

1983 action, arguing that it lacked any power to rescind a previous order. We affirm.

It is a well established rule of trial procedure that a district court may reconsider and

reverse a previous interlocutory order at its discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[An order of

the district court] is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all

the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”); Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426
2

F.2d 858, 862 (5th Cir. 1970) (“[B]ecause the [denial of a motion for summary judgment] was

interlocutory, ‘the court at any time before final decree [could] modify or rescind it.’” (quoting

John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros., 258 U.S. 82, 88, 42 S. Ct. 196, 198, 66 L. Ed. 475 (1922))

(final alteration in original)). The district court’s decision to rescind the non-appealable, interim

order following a development in Fifth Circuit law was not an abuse of its discretion. See

Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 184-85 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding

that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted a motion for summary judgment

after originally denying the motion because of an intervening change in the applicable law). 

Because Holoway raises no other argument, we need not further consider the merits of the district

court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal. See Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I Ltd., 155 F.3d 526, 545 n.11 (5th

Cir. 1998) (recognizing that an appellant waives any issue not raised or argued in its initiating

appellate brief).

AFFIRMED.
No. 49939.

#### Protest 11269-K of Brooks Brothers (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosed no reason for disturbing the finding of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 30-2 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 23 of 23
Case 2:04-cv-00384-MAM Document 7 Filed 02/25/04 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-00384-MAM Document 7 Filed 02/25/04 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-00384-MAM Document 7 Filed 02/25/04 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-00384-MAM Document 7 Filed 02/25/04 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-00384-MAM Document 7 Filed 02/25/04 Page 5 of 5
# C_2017112EN.01001401.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

---

Appeal brought on 22 September 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2016 in Case T-429/15: Monster Energy v EUIPO — MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE (MAD CATZ)

(Case C-501/16 P)

(2017/C 112/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 16 February 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
* 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. 07-10929

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TERESA SMITH

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-12

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Teresa Smith appeals the 309-month sentence imposed following her

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The sole issue raised by Smith is whether the

district court erred in denying her a downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Smith contends that she demonstrated

her acceptance of responsibility notwithstanding that she filed objections to the

probation officer’s drug-quantity determination.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10929

2

Deferring to the trial court’s unique position, this court examines the

denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under a standard of review

even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard. United States v.

Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2003). This court “will affirm a sentencing

court’s decision not to award a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is

without foundation.” United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court determined that Smith contested drug quantities that

she knew she had received and therefore did not clearly demonstrate that she

was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Because there was

a foundation for the district court’s determination, its finding is not clearly

erroneous. See Outlaw, 319 F.3d at 705; Solis 299 F.3d at 458. Accordingly,

Smith’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WILSON : 02-3878

RETES : 02-3888

LUX, et al. : 02-3904

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3921

GUZZETTA, et al. : 02-3960

FAGAN, et al. : 02-3965

GREEN : 02-3989

NELSON, et al. : 02-4120

ASHTON, et al. : 02-4155

MCNALLY, et al : 02-4159

EVERETT, et al. : 02-4191

CASTELAZ, et al. : 02-4192

PERRY : 02-4249

NAPIER, et al. : 02-4256

POWERS, et al. : 02-4260

SANTOS, et al. : 02-4272

PRICE : 02-4299

SHULDA : 02-4307

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04191-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04191-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.1



April 12, 2006



2006 Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F St., N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies and Gentlemen:



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute
a part of the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the Report) accompanying this letter.



Antonio Viana-Baptista, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Telefónica Móviles, S.A. and Ernesto López Mozo, the Chief Financial Officer of Telefónica Móviles, S.A., each
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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 operations of
Telefónica Móviles, S.A.



/s/ Antonio Viana-BaptistaName: Antonio Viana-Baptista Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Ernesto López MozoName: Ernesto López Mozo Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016200EN.01000502.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

(Case C-121/16)

(2016/C 200/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties?

| 2. | In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety?

---
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

July 2016 31,007 84,575 2,623 78 1 118,284

August 2016 30,609 88,181 2,988 109 1 121,888

September 2016 32,215 113,793 4,597 194 1 150,800

Totals 93,831 286,549 10,208 381 3 390,972

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

 400,000

 450,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

Totals
# C_2015089EN.01003401.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/34

---

Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v OHIM — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)

(Case T-20/15)

(2015/C 089/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milano, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PICCOLOMINI’ — Application for registration No 10 564 573

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2265/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM and the third party to bear the costs of proceedings including the costs of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the third party to bear the costs of proceedings including the costs of the Applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
PHL_A #1646124 v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM D. HUHN and

WILLIAM D. HUHN f/o/b/o 

WILLIAM D. HUHN, IRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN J. RIGAS, TIMOTHY J. RIGAS, 

JAMES P. RIGAS, MICHAEL J. RIGAS,

PERRY S. PATTERSON, PETE J. METROS,

DENNIS P. COYLE, LESLIE J. GELBER,

PETER L. VENETIS, DANIEL R. MILLARD,

ERLAND E. KAILBOURNE,

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, 

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC., and

BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4334

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF COURT:

Kindly enter our appearance in the above-captioned action on behalf of defendant, 

Deloitte & Touche LLP.

______________________________________

Alan J. Davis

William A. Slaughter

Joel E. Tasca

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 864-8230/8114/8188

(215) 864-8999 (fax)

Date: July 17, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-04334-HH Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 1 of 2
PHL_A #1646124 v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 17, 2002, I caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Entry of Appearance to be served by First Class Mail upon:

Denise Davis Schwartzman, Esquire

CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP

361 West Lancaster Avenue

Haverford, PA 19041

________________________________

Joel E. Tasca

Case 2:02-cv-04334-HH Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4700 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Before the First Division,

January 23, 1951

No. 55149.

#### Cathay Crafts Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134488-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GUY ANNA MAXWELL and

RICHARD MAXWELL

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4275

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04275-JP Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1