alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015178EN.01002301.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/23

---

Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise

OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

(Case T-167/15)

(2015/C 178/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. (Veitsbronn, Deutschland) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Appeal Board: Freistaat Bayern (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Appeal Board:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 28/2014-5

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;

| — | declare the sign ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’ — Community trade mark No 10 144 392 — invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the sign ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’ — Community trade mark No 10 144 392 — invalid;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# 01front.wpd

# 02conts.wpd

# 03summ.wpd

# 04chap1.wpd

# 05chap2.wpd

# 06chap3.wpd

# 07chap4.wpd

# 08chap5.wpd

# 09refs.wpd

# 10etbl1.wpd

# 11etbl2.wpd

# 12etbl3.wpd

# 13etbl4.wpd

# 14etbl5.wpd

# 15etbl6.wpd

# 16etbl7.wpd

# 17etbl8.wpd

# 18etbl9.wpd

# 19etbl10.wpd

# 20etbl11.wpd

# 21etbl12.wpd

# 22etbl13.wpd

# 23etbl14.wpd

# 24etbl15.wpd

# 25etbl16.wpd

# 26etbl17.wpd

# 27etbl18.wpd

# 28etbl19.wpd

# 29etbl20.wpd

# 30etbl21.wpd

# 31etbl22.wpd

# 32etbl23.wpd

# 33etbl24.wpd

# 34biblio.wpd

# 35appa.wpd

# 36appb.wpd

# 37appc.wpd

# 38appd.wpd

# 39appe.wpd

# 40appf.wpd

# 41appg.wpd

# 42apph.wpd

# 43appi.wpd

# 44appj.wpd

# 45appk.wpd

# Files.txt
Exhibit 10.15


 


Note: The
fees, payment terms, and other business terms in the agreement and exhibits have been excluded because these terms are both not
material and would likely cause competitive harm to IDW Media Holdings Inc. if publicly disclosed.


 


IDEA AND DESIGN WORKS, LLC 


2765 Truxtun Road


San Diego, CA 92106


 


	Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc.	March 1, 2016
	10150 York Road	 
	Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030	 



 


Re: Supply Agreement
entered into as of September 30, 2013 (the “Agreement”) by and between Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc. (“Buyer”)
and Idea and Design Works, LLC d/b/a IDW Publishing (“Seller”)


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to Section 15 of the
above-referenced Agreement, which provides that the Agreement may not be modified except by an instrument in writing signed by
both Buyer and Seller. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement.
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, Buyer and Seller hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1. The Term of the Agreement as defined
in Section 2 is hereby extended for an additional Contract Year corresponding to the dates October 1, 2016 through September 30,
2017.


 


2. Seller has the option, exercisable by
written notice to Buyer, to discontinue Buyer’s appointment as a distributor of any Products in the Book Market and Mass
Market effective as of April 1, 2017.


 


3. The definition of “Net Products”
in Section 6(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


[redacted]



 


4. Section 7(c) is hereby deleted in its
entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


[redacted] 


 


5. The first sentence of Section 1(b) of
Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


[redacted] 


 


6. The following sentence is added to the
end of Section 9 of Exhibit A to the Agreement:


 


[redacted] 


 






    


    




    

 


7. Seller’s address as set forth
in Section 11 is hereby deleted and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


IDEA AND DESIGN WORKS, LLC


2765 Truxtun Road


San Diego, CA 92106


Attention: Ted Adams


Fax: (858) 270-1308


 


Except as otherwise amended above, the
Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


This Amendment may be executed in one or
more identical counterparts, and delivered via facsimile or e-mail (PDF format) transmission, each of which will be deemed to be
an original and, which taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same Amendment.


 


	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 
	Idea and Design Works, LLC	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Greg Goldstein 	 
	 	 
	Name:  	Greg Goldstein
	 
	 	 
	Title:	 President and COO
	 



 


Agreed to and accepted as of the


date first written above:


 


	Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc.	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Larry Swanson
	 
	 	 
	Name: 	Larry R. Swanson
	 
	 	 
	Title:	Treasurer	 
	 	 



 


 


Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
10.5
 FORM OF AMENDMENT ONE TO
NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
   the Option(s)
  1.
    
    A new Section 11 entitled Change in Control is added after Section 10 of the
Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement(s) to read as follows:
  2.
    
    The section entitled Notices of the Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement is now renumbered as Section 12;3.
    
    The section entitled Governing Plan Document of the Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement is
now renumbered as Section 13; and




---



##### 



4.
    
    Except as specifically amended and modified herein, the Option(s) shall continue
 in force and effect pursuant to its terms, as originally granted, subject to the provisions
 of the EIP.
  Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc.By:Name:
    Stephen T. Worland, Ph.DTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer  Grantee
 By:
    
    
    Date:Name:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN P. SCHELLING : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART : NO. 04-2312 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2005, upon consideration

of the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa's April 26, 2005 Report and

Recommendation (docket entry # 11), and plaintiff's failure to

object within ten days of the Report and Recommendation, as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the April 26, 2005 letter

to plaintiff from the Clerk of Court, thereby preventing us from

executing our congressionally entrusted task, i.e., "make a de

novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,"

id., it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

and

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:04-cv-02312-SD Document 12 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 2:04-cv-02312-SD Document 12 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Felton, Chairman of the Board,
President, and Chief Executive 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:

(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 the Company.



|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|/s/ Robert W. Felton                                                      
|Robert W. Felton                                                          
|Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                          
|May 15, 2006
On February 12, 2007, Michael J. Astrue became the Commissioner of Social 1 

Security. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Astrue was substituted for

former Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 25(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANNETTE E. CHAPPARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE,1

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 Civil Action 

No. 04-5246

MEMORANDUM/ORDER

August 8, 2007,

In a previous Memorandum and Order, I made a preliminary finding that plaintiff

Annette E. Chapparo’s petition for attorney fees (Docket No. 18, filed June 8, 2007) was

filed out of time, and I gave Chapparo until July 31, 2007 to show cause why her petition

for fees should not be denied as untimely. See Memo. & Order of July 6, 2007 (Docket

No. 20, filed July 9, 2007). On July 31, 2007, Chapparo filed her Response to Honorable

Court’s Request to Show Cause (Docket No. 21). In her July 31, 2007 response,

Chapparo does not contest the determination that her petition for fees was filed after the

Case 2:04-cv-05246-LP Document 22 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

statutory deadline, but she contends that the petition should nevertheless be deemed

timely pursuant to principles of equitable tolling. 

However, upon consideration of Chapparo’s filing, along with the factors

discussed in my July 6, 2007 Memorandum, I find that the failure of Chapparo’s counsel

to anticipate that the Commissioner would seek to enforce the filing deadline in this case

does not provide a sufficient basis to justify equitable tolling. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Petition for Fees (Docket No. 18) is DENIED as untimely.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

 

Pollak, J.

Case 2:04-cv-05246-LP Document 22 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

U.S. Court House

Independence Mall West

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797

215/597-1178

June 22, 2004

NOTICE OF HEARING:

RE: PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. V. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE CO.

 Civil Action No. 04-2322

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised that a hearing is scheduled on Defendant’s

Motion to Compel Arbitration. The hearing will be held on 

June 25, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A, 6th Floor, United

States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Very truly yours,

Gerrie Keane

Deputy Clerk to Judge Padova

To: Peter J. Deeb

Stephen C. Baker

gmk 6/22/04

fax to counsel

Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 6 Filed 06/22/2004 Page 1 of 1

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: PETITION OF FRESCATI 

SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., as owner of 

the M/T ATHOS I and TSAKOS SHIPPING & 

TRADING, S.A., as manager of the ATHOS I 

for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 05-0305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-2898

CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of June 2018, it is ORDERED that a telephone conference

with counsel for the parties will be held on July 11, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Counsel for the Frescati 

Plaintiffs shall initiate the call to Chambers at (267) 299-7340. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky

JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00305-JHS Document 903 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 1
1. Because the defendants in this action appear to reside in the

Middle District of Pennsylvania, and plaintiff's claims arose at

S.C.I. Mahanoy, which is located in the Middle District of

Pennsylvania, this action may not be brought in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK R. MORGAN : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

DR. EDELMAN, et al. : NO. 02-4098

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of June, 2002, plaintiff

having failed to either pay the $150 filing fee to commence this

action or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Clerk

of Court is directed to CLOSE this action statistically. 

Plaintiff may reassert this action in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where venue

appears to be properly laid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).1

BY THE COURT:

 

 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04098-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04098-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016335EN.01003602.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

(Case C-356/16)

(2016/C 335/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Wamo BVBA,

Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

Question referred

Question referred

Should Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be interpreted as precluding a national law which prohibits any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising relating to interventions involving aesthetic surgery or non-surgical aesthetic medicine, as provided by Article 20(1) of the Wet van 23 mei 2013 tot regeling van de vereiste kwalificaties om ingrepen van niet-heelkundige esthetische geneeskunde en esthetische heelkunde uit te voeren en tot regeling van de reclame en informatie betreffende die ingrepen (Law of 23 May 2013 regulating the qualifications required to perform non-surgical aesthetic interventions and aesthetic surgery and regulating the advertising and information relating to such interventions) (B.S., 2 July 2013), inserted by the Wet van 10 [April] 2014 houdende diverse bepalingen inzake gezondheid 2014 (Law of 10 April 2014 containing various provisions relating to health) (B.S., 30 April 2014)?

1

B.S

B.S

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

1

---
DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By: Christopher H. Wright, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No.: 27091

1525 Locust Street, 14th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Defendant Verizon

(215) 732-3755

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY L. OAKES : Civil Action No. 02-2749

:

vs. :

:

HENKELS AND McCOY, et al :

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, VERIZON (FORMERLY KNOWN

AS BELL ATLANTIC) TO CROSSCLAIM OF CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Denied. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. specifically denies that it has liability to the Plaintiff or

has liability by way of contribution and/or indemnification to any of the Co-Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. requests judgment in its favor. 

DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By:________________________________________

 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE

 Attorney for Defendant, Verizon

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 20 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 1 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Christopher H. Wright, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Answer of Defendant, Verizon (formerly known as Bell Atlantic) to Crossclaim of City

of Philadelphia was served on the following counsel of record and unrepresented parties by first

class U.S. mail, postage prepaid:

Dennis E. Block, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 

Block & Gatusso

Washington Professional Campus

900 Route 168, Suite H1

Turnersville, NJ 08012

Andrew L. Salvatore, Esquire Attorney for Henkels & McCoy

Kelly, McLaughlin, Foster, Bracaglia,

 Daly, Trabucco & White

1617 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1690

Philadelphia, PA 19103-1815

Robert C. Mickle, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Danella Construction Co.

Kennedy, Walker & Lipski & Level 3 Communications

1818 Market Street, Suite 2510

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Conrad O. Kattner, Esquire Attorney for PECO Energy Company

PECO Energy Co. Legal Department / Exelon Communications

2301 Market Street, P.O. Box 8699

Philadelphia, PA 19101-8699

Kenneth S. Butensky, Esquire Attorney for City of Philadelphia

City of Philadelphia Law Department

One Parkway

1515 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19102

John O.J. Shellenberger, Esquire Attorney for Pennsylvania Department

Office of Attorney General of Transportation

21 S. 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3603

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 20 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 2 of 3
Colette A. Pete, Esquire Attorney for Philadelphia Gas Works

Philadelphia Gas Works

800 W. Montgomery Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19122

DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By:___________________________________

 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE

 Attorney for Defendant, Verizon 

Date: July 29, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 20 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 3 of 3
No. 52194.

protest 129005-K (Tampa).

#### Erich S. Herrmann, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When this case was originally heard, a motion to dismiss was made by the Government on the ground that no proper protest had been filed within 60 days from the date of liquidation. This motion was .denied in view of the fact that the letter of April 8, 1946, which was timely, referred to previous correspondence setting forth plaintiff’s contentions, so that the collector was apprised of the claim. However,-no evidence was submitted except plaintiff’s letters protesting the assessment of duty, and, after a consideration of the circumstances, the case was restored to the calendar for the introduction of evidence on the question of originality and intended use of the painting. At the rehearing the appraiser testified that he would report it as an original painting within the purview of paragraph 1807. The importer testified that he had seen the artist when he visited Paris; that he had several demands for paintings by the artist but that generally they were too expensive for him; that he purchased the one in question because he did not want to leave the studio without showing the artist his good will; that he sold the painting to a friend of his; and that it had not been copied or reproduced in any manner. On the record presented it was held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the painting is an original painting in oil and that it is not an article of utility or for industrial use. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1807 was therefore sustained.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 80

Note 3. Accounts and Taxes Receivable, Net 

Accounts and Taxes Receivable as of September 30, 2019, and 2018 

(In billions of dollars) 2019 2018

Accounts receivable: 

Gross accounts receivable .......................................................................... 117.7 112.4

Allowance for uncollectible amounts ............................................................ (31.8) (30.5)

Accounts receivable, net ............................................................................. 85.9 81.9

Taxes receivable: 

Gross taxes receivable ............................................................................... 381.5 226.7

Allowance for uncollectible amounts ............................................................ (229.4) (163.7)

Taxes receivable, net ................................................................................. 152.1 63.0

Total accounts and taxes receivable, net ................................................... 238.0 144.9

Gross accounts receivable includes related interest receivable of $3.3 billion and $3.6 billion as of September 30, 2019, 

and 2018, respectively. 

Treasury comprises approximately 61.3 percent of the government’s reported accounts and taxes receivable, net, as of 

September 30, 2019. Treasury experienced a year-to-year increase of $85.9 billion due to taxes receivable. This is a 

consequence of the TCJA of 2017, which imposed a one-time tax on previously unrepatriated foreign earnings at a reduced 

rate that taxpayers may elect to pay over an eight-year installment schedule. The following list of entities comprise 98.2 

percent of the government’s accounts and taxes receivable, net, of $238.0 billion as of September 30, 2019. Please refer to the 

following entities financial statements for details on gross accounts and taxes receivable and the related allowance for 

uncollectible amounts: 

 Treasury  DOD  DOL 

 HHS  PBGC  USPS 

 SSA  USDA  FDIC 

 DHS  DOE  FCC 

 DOI  TVA 

 VA  OPM 

 Accounts and Taxes receivable, net include amounts related to criminal restitution owed to the government. In fiscal 

year 2019, accounts and taxes receivable, net included $7.7 billion of gross receivable related to criminal restitution orders 

monitored by responsible entities, of which $1.4 billion is determined to be collectible. Of this gross receivable amount, 

Treasury and HHS collectively account for $5.3 billion of which $0.5 billion is determined to be collectible as of September 

30, 2019. In fiscal year 2018, this balance included $7.9 billion of gross receivables related to criminal restitution orders, of 

which $0.7 billion is determined to be collectible. Of this gross receivable amount, Treasury and HHS collectively account 

for $5.7 billion of which $0.5 billion is determined to be collectible as of September 30, 2018.
1The parties agreed that the jury should be discharged. Accordingly, the instant Motion is

dismissed as moot. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

v. : CRIMINAL No. 04-CR-707

:

ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant’s “Urgent Motion

for Reconsideration of Intention to Discharge Impaneled Jury” (Doc. No. 93), the Government’s

response thereto, and a telephone conference held on February 2, 2006, with all counsel present, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DISMISSED as moot.1

BY THE COURT:

 s/ John R. Padova 

John R. Padova, J. 

Case 2:04-cr-00707-JP Document 103 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1