alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


      In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                        INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: August 19, 2008                By:  /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Bruce Mogel
                                           Chief Executive Officer
No. 56957.

#### Star Jewelry Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 144030-K, 146609-K, and 146617-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of jewelry in chief value of artificial flowers the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Coro, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 154, C. A. D. 478), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10922)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 918794-1/3; 904144-1/5; 847091.

(Decided March 22, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etsect.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following table lists our
subsidiaries and their jurisdiction of incorporation as of June 30, 2009:



|                                  |  |                         
|--------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Subsidiary                        |  | Country of Incorporation
|Shopping Alto Palermo S.A.        |  | Argentina               
|Fibesa S.A.                       |  | Argentina               
|Tarshop S.A.                      |  | Argentina               
|Emprendimiento Recoleta S.A.      |  | Argentina               
|Shopping Neuquén S.A.             |  | Argentina               
|Comercializadora Los Altos S.A(5) |  | Argentina               
|Panamerican Mall S.A.             |  | Argentina
# C_2017195EN.01000602.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Anikó Pint v European Commission

(Case C-625/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents from the Hungarian Government relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/15 [CHAP(2015)00353 and 6874/14/JUST] concerning an alleged infringement by Hungary of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Request to be provided with documents - Lack of a response from the European Commission))

(2017/C 195/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | Ms Anikó Pint shall bear her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Ms Anikó Pint shall bear her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.04.2017.

1

---
CHRISTOPHER CRUZ 

WALLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2334

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 7, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.

Colby Peel, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, Shannon M Hemmendinger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Miami-Dade, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
서비스 이용 고객을 위한 담보대출

구제 옵션

프레디맥은 서비스 이용 고객이 부동산압류를 피하실 수 있도록 최선읁 다해 도와드립니다. 

프레디맥의 담보대출 서비스를 이용 중이며 담보대출상환에 어려움읁 겪고 있다면, 귀하는 대출업첮(또는

담보대출 관리 회사)에 가급적 신속하게 그 사실읁 앋려야 ଢ니다. 혹은 1-800-FREDDIE 로 젂화한 후 2번읁 눌러

프레디맥 고객 지원 팀에 연락핝 수도 있습니다. 

프레디맥의 담보대출 구제 옵션

 재융자: 새로운 조건의 신규 대출 건으로 재융자를 하게 됑면 귀하의 웑간 주택담보대출 상환금읁 더욱

안정적으로 납부핝 수 있는 수준으로 조정핝 수 있습니다. 주택에 대한 자기 자본 비율이 상당히 낮거나

0%에 해당하여 기존의 방식으로 재융자를 핝 수 없다면, 귀하는 연방 주택재융자프로그램(HARP) 읁 통해

재융자핝 수 있습니다. 

 관용: 단기적인 경제적 어려움에 처해 있으며 담보대출읁 통한 임시 지원이 필요하다면, 대출업첮는 귀하에게

"관용" 옵션읁 권핝 수 있습니다. 해당 옵션읁 이용하면 대출업첮가 읹시적으로 귀하의 담보대출상환액에

대해 금액 조정 또는 납부 정지 조치를 취하며, 그동안 재정 상태를 회복핝 수 있습니다. 

 원상 회복 또는 상환계획: 단기적인 경제적 어려움으로 인해 담보대출상환이 몆 개웑 지연됐으나 현재는

재정적으로 안정됐다면, 귀하는 원상 회복 또는 상환계획읁 실시핝 수도 있습니다. 이들 옵션읁 이용하면

귀하는 미납액과 연첮료를 읹시불로 납부하거나 웑간 주택담보대출 정기 상환금 중 미납액읁 취ଢ한 후에

산정한 귝등 분핝액읁 소정 기간에 걸쳐 납부ଡ으로써 귀하의 상태를 경상 상태로 됑돌릴 수 있습니다. 

 변경: 담보대출상환읁 지연했거나 담보대출상환의 지연이 곧 발생하리라고 예상됑는 경우, 귀하는 담보대출

조건읁 하나 이상 변경해 줁 것읁 대출업첮에 요청ଡ으로써 담보대출상환금읁 장기간 더욱 안정적으로 납부핝

수도 있습니다. 모기지 조정 프로그램(HAMP), 프레디맥 표준 변경 옵션 및 그 밖의 변경 옵션읁 이용핝 수

있는지 대출업첮에 반드시 문의하십시오. 

 공매도 또는 소유권 양도: 주택소유자가 권리 집행읁 더는 유예하지 않기로 했으며 귀하가 부동산압류

이외의 대안 조치를 이용핝 수 없거나 귀하가 주택읁 더는 유지하기를 희망하지 않는 경우, 공매도 또는

소유권 양도 옵션읁 이용하면 귀하는 해당 주택에서 무탈하게 나가고 부동산압류로 인한 경제적 및·감정적

불편ଡ읁 겪지 않읁 수 있습니다. 

 이자율 구제: 고용 상태를 유지하는 동안 그리고 고용 상태가 종료됒 후 1년 동안, 연 담보대출 이자율에

6%의 상한읁 설정핝 자격읁 얻읁 수 있습니다. 

프레디맥은 근무지 변경(PCS) 시 경제적 어려움이 발생핝 수 있다고 판단하고 있습니다. PCS 명령에 따라

젂근읁 앞두고 있다면 귀하는 프레디맥에서 제공하는 부동산압류 대안 옵션읁 고려핝 수 있습니다. 

■

부동산압류 구제 사기와 공매도 사기에 주의하십시오! 

http://myhome.freddiemac.com/mortgage-help/avoid_fraud.html에

방문하여 자세한 사항을 알아보십시오.

추가 정보: 

http://myhome.freddiemac.com/mortgage-help/military-assistance.html 에 방문하거나 1-800-FREDDIE 로 젂화한 후

2번읁 눌러 프레디맥 고객 지원 팀에 연락하십시오. 

간행물 번호 905 2015년 6웑
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada ClassicThoroughbreds, Inc.pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002regarding Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended June 30, 2017**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the "Company"), does hereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,2017 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

> 
Dated: October 15, 2017

By: /s/ Brad Brimhall 

 

________________________________________

 

Brad Brimhall   Principal Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 6,650.

#### HOLTZMAN v. PLUMSEL.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 184.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1831.

Insolvency — Pkiok Application and Conviction.

The conviction of an insolvent debtor, upon allegations filed upon a former petition, when he was eommittea in execution in favor of another creditor who has since been paid, is not a bar to his subsequent application for the benefit of the insolvent act, when committed under a subsequent execution.

This was a petition by Plumsel for the benefit of the insolvent act for the District of Columbia; to which, objections were filed by Holtzman, a creditor, before CRANCH, Chief Judge, on the Gth of July last, and by him postponed, to take the opinion of this court, whether a conviction upon allegations filed upon a former petition, when the petitioner was committed in execution in favor of another creditor who has since been paid, is a bar to his present application, when committed under a subsequent execution.

Upon consideration of the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1803 (2 Stat. 237), and the second section of the act of June 24, 1812 (2 Stat. 755), THE COURT (MOR-SELL, Circuit Judge, absent! was of opinion ' that it is not a bar. Under the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1803, the debtor convicted “of fraud or deceit towards his creditors, or of having lost by gaming as aforesaid, or of having given any preference as aforesaid,” “shall be precluded from any benefit under this act;” which words are explained, in the second section of the act of 1812, by the words, “he shall not be permitted to take the said oath, and shall be precluded from any benefit under the said act;” whereas, by the same sections of those acts, persons guilty of perjury in the proceedings under the said act, “shall be forever precluded from any benefit under this act.” The word “forever,” seems to make a distinction in the extent of the penalty affixed to the two offences. In the first cáse, it seems to contemplate a denial of a discharge from that imprisonment only of which the petitioner complains; in the second, a perpetual bar in all cases, because no credit can be given to his oath after a conviction of perjury.
Before the Third Division,

September 25, 1947

No. 51916.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

protest 33062-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Joseph Schmidt, Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 188, C. D. 690) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ID 

House Calendar No. 117 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 117 

[Report No. 115–516] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JANUARY 16, 2018 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 117 RH

A BILL 

To designate a mountain peak in the State of Montana 

as ‘‘Alex Diekmann Peak’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 117 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alex Diekmann Peak 

5 Designation Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ALEX DIEKMANN PEAK, MON7 TANA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The unnamed 9,765-foot peak lo9 cated 2.2 miles west-northwest of Finger Mountain on the 

10 western boundary of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Montana 

11 (UTM coordinates Zone 12, 457966 E., 4982589 N.), 

12 shall be known and designated as ‘‘Alex Diekmann Peak’’. 

13 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg14 ulation, document, record, or other paper of the United 

15 States to the peak described in subsection (a) shall be con16 sidered to be a reference to ‘‘Alex Diekmann Peak’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 117 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 117 

[Report No. 115–516] 

A BILL 

To designate a mountain peak in the State of 

Montana as ‘‘Alex Diekmann Peak’’. 

JANUARY 16, 2018 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 71 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 71 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 71 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 3 of 3
# November 2023
Before the Second Division,

April 11, 1961

No. 65428.

#### Border Brokerage Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 272587-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon gill nets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63947, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-02685-HB Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02685-HB Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02685-HB Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02685-HB Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02685-HB Document 12 Filed 05/17/07 Page 5 of 5
1 Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:48 PM

To: 'mklphoto@sprynet.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Mi ke Levin Photography & Digital Imaging

Dear Mr. Mike Levin,

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 0191). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and

remove closed

‐ set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the

requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 5/13/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without

notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. 

v. 

CITY OF BURLINGTON, 

VERMONT 

Complainant, 

Resnondent 

.FAA Docket No. 16-14-06 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to October 14, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Kevin . Willis 

Acting irector, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE O:F SERVICE 

·~ 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July _11_, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

FOR RESPONDENT 

Pablo 0. Nuesch 

Anjali G. Patel 

Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

FOR COMPLAINANT 

Benjamin H. Klein 

Gross & Klein LLP 

Pier 9, Suite 100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 

FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-100 

laudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

LEACH, Senior Deputy; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16335

D.C. No. 

1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Stephen Joseph Murphy III, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 19, 2018 ** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Lanard Kitchens appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying relief from final judgment following a jury verdict in

Kitchens’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants subjected him to

unconstitutional conditions of confinement and retaliated against him. We have

FILED

JUN 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. De

Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kitchens’s motion

for relief from final judgment because Kitchens did not show any of the grounds

for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)

(district court may grant relief because of, inter alia, “newly discovered evidence”

or “fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”); De

Saracho, 206 F.3d at 880 (to establish fraud for purposes of Rule 60(b), “the

moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was

obtained through fraud . . . and the conduct complained of prevented the losing

party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.”); Coastal Transfer Co. v.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Evidence is not

‘newly discovered’ under the Federal Rules if it was in the moving party’s

possession at the time of trial or could have been discovered with reasonable

diligence.”).

The record does not support Kitchens’s contention that the district court

denied any request for postjudgment discovery. To the extent that Kitchens seeks

2
reconsideration of this court’s January 13, 2017, order denying his motion to

compel, we decline to consider the request. See Dkt. No. 17.

AFFIRMED.

3
No. 52896.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 123831-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
# C_2017053EN.01002002.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 26 September 2016 — Karim Boudjellal v Rauwers Contrôle SA

(Case C-508/16)

(2017/C 053/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karim Boudjellal

Applicant:

Defendant: Rauwers Contrôle SA

Defendant:

By order of 11 January 2017, the Court (Seventh Chamber) declared that it had no jurisdiction to answer the questions put to it by the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium).

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

STANFORD : 02-3874

RAYMOND : 02-3880

LOVE, et al. : 02-3912

JAY, et al. : 02-3923

JOHENGEN, et al. : 02-3943

MCDONALD : 02-3963

CRISOSTOMO : 02-3982

SANTOS : 02-4106

TRACEY, et al. : 02-4115

COSENZA : 02-4146

HOOD, et al. : 02-4154

PICKNER : 02-4213

BROWN, et al. : 02-4224

EWING, et al. : 02-4226

RIGEL, et al. : 02-4259

SANTOS : 02-4284

GARCIA : 02-4311

EVANS, et al. : 02-4316

:

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-04259-BWK Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 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:

________________________________________

Bruce W. Kauffman, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04259-BWK Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2