alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SYDNEY BRADSHAW, :

Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

 : Nos. 01-CV-5221 and

: 02-CV-4268

IMMIGRATION AND :

NATURALIZATION SERVICE, et al., :

Respondents. :

ORDER

Presently before the Court are the following: (1) Petitioner Sydney Bradshaw’s Motion to

Amend the Above Case and Respondents’ Response (Civil Action No. 01-5221); (2) Petitioner’s

Petition for Stay of Removal (Civil Action No. 02-4268); and (3) Additional Supplement Brief to

Support Petitioner’s Claim to be a National and Not Removable (Civil Action No. 02-4268). The

Court will consider Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Above Case, which was timely filed, as a

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, dated May 31, 2002, and

entered June 3, 2002, which denied Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In his

Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that he is a national of the United States, a claim

that he raises in his other habeas petition, filed under Civil Action No. 02-4268. 

Upon reconsideration, the Court will permit Petitioner to amend his habeas corpus petition

in Civil Action No. 01-5221 since this claim is also raised in Civil Action No. 02-4268. The

Court will consolidate the two actions and file them in Civil Action No. 02-4268; Civil Action No.

01-5221 will be closed statistically. Respondents will be ordered to respond within twenty (20)

days of the entry of this Order to the allegations contained therein. The Court will further order a

stay of deportation pending further order of the Court. 

Case 2:02-cv-04268-CG Document 6 Filed 09/06/2002 Page 1 of 2
2

AND NOW, this ________ day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Petitioner’s

Motion to Amend the Above Case and Respondents’ Response (Civil Action No. 01-5221), (2)

Petitioner’s Petition for Stay of Removal (Civil Action No. 02-4268); and (3) Additional

Supplement Brief to Support Petitioner’s Claim to be a National and Not Removable (Civil

Action No. 02-4268), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Above Case is GRANTED; 

2. Civil Action No. 01-5221 and Civil Action No. 02-4268 shall be

CONSOLIDATED and FILED in Civil Action No. 02-4268;

3. Civil Action No. 01-5221 shall be CLOSED statistically; 

4. Respondents shall respond to Petitioner’s Petition for Stay of Removal and

Additional Supplement Brief to Support Petitioner’s Claim to be a National

and Not Removable within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order;

and 

5. Pending further order of the Court, Petitioner’s Petition for Stay of

Removal is GRANTED such that Petitioner’s final order of removal is

STAYED.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN, S.J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04268-CG Document 6 Filed 09/06/2002 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUGUSTUS C. PATTERSON :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 04-4202

GLAXOSMITHKLINE :

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, ET AL. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of July , 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s

Motion To Enforce The Court Case Order Dated 01 September 2005 Dismissing Plaintiff’s Case

With Prejudice As Settled (ECF No. 48), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in

opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04202-RBS Document 60 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-5154

 :

 v. :

 :

ERIC WILLIAMS : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-37

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant Eric Williams’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 69), and

all attendant and responsive briefing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. 

2. Because Williams has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova, J. 

 

John R. Padova, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

 COMMISSION, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

:

RAYMOND ROSS, :

Intervener/ :

Counterclaim Defendant, :

:

v. :

:

THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., :

Defendant/ : NO. 04-cv-4126

Counterclaim Plaintiff :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6 day of September, 2006, upon consideration of The Vanguard Group, th

Inc.’s Motion to Hold Raymond Ross and E-JCL Software, Inc. in Contempt of Court and

accompanying Declaration (Docket Nos. 67, 68), and the Response of Intervener Raymond Ross

thereto (Docket No. 69), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

It is furthered ORDERED that Mr. Ross is instructed to produce for inspection pursuant

to the Court’s Order dated July 14, 2006 all computers that he owns or possesses.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter

GENE E.K. PRATTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2010- O^SZ. 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED &IM; O 

DOCKETOST-2^/^. QO^ ^ j , ,,. .v^E Af ^ ^, P^/ ^ 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where nppiicr!: 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition K <?•-•' "i ' -t14 CFR 385.30 or n review is Lindertnkc:! o:i -i^c 1JI • 

In view of the aGic'jr,v.:iiis ;io;icontrovc'si;!! nr.n,, 

the above Brtracdurc, the 21 -^ y ngpiod iju i 4 Ci- k j, , 

09 February 2010 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

lATA Washington, 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - North Building 

Washington DC 20004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WYLIE : 02-3872

JACOBS, et al. : 02-3931

MORRIS : 02-3968

VARGAS, et al. : 02-4172

WALSH, et al. : 02-4181

WASLH, et al. : 02-4183

BRUNO : 02-4232

BURNETT, et al. : 02-4236

ANCTIL : 02-4285

FISHER, et al. : 02-4293

ASHCRAFT : 02-4297

CHARBONEAU : 02-4308

:

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.

[ 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

Case 2:02-cv-04308-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 1 of 2
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:

________________________________________

Legrome D. Davis, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04308-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff : NO. 02-4364

:

:

:

JOSEPH ORTLIP, ET AL., :

Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of October 2002, it is ORDERED

that both parties shall file cross-motions for summary judgment

by December 16, 2002. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that responses to the 

cross-motions for summary judgment shall be filed by February 14,

2003.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________

 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04364-ER Document 7 Filed 10/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
ww PAC =

IPAC Operational Metrics for August 2019

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount| % of Total Dollar Amount| Number of Transactions| % of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 16,141,613,239,341) 99.7796] 15,255) 11.7196}
Buy/Sell 30,187,438,957] 0.1996] 113,734) 87.29%)
Benefits (RITS) 6,194,589,549| 0.04%] 485 0.37%)
‘Check Aftermath (TRACS) 110,764,074] 0.0034] 822| 0.63%)
Zero Dollar 4) 0.00% 4 0.0036]
| Grand Total - August 2019 16,178,106,031,921| 100.00%| 130,297) 100.00%6|
| Grand Total - July 2019 8,096,168, 183,406) 00.00%) 128,382) 100.00%6|
july to August Change 8,081,937,848,515|
Percentage Change 39.8% po
[Grand Total - August 2018 17,524,156,772,028| ; 126,096
Aug 2018 to Aug 2019 Change

Percentage Change
# C_2017030EN.01001701.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 October 2016 — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-529/16)

(2017/C 030/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Article 28 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, (2) permit an agreed transfer price, which is composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, using an allocation key, regardless of whether a subsequent debit charge or credit is made to the declarant at the end of the accounting period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Article 28 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, (2) permit an agreed transfer price, which is composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, using an allocation key, regardless of whether a subsequent debit charge or credit is made to the declarant at the end of the accounting period?

1

2

| 2. | If so:
  May the customs value be reviewed and/or determined using simplified approaches where the effects of subsequent transfer pricing adjustments (both upward and downward) can be recognised? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so:

May the customs value be reviewed and/or determined using simplified approaches where the effects of subsequent transfer pricing adjustments (both upward and downward) can be recognised?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17.

2

---
Before the Third Division,

June 26, 1943

No. 48435.

#### Protests 989813-G, etc., of Knickerbocker Mills Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Adams. Kevin (OST)

Cc:

Adams, Kevin (OST)

Monday, February 24, 2014 11:46 AM

Fort Dodge, Airport Manager, Rhonda Chambers; Fort Dodge, City Manager, David

Fierke; Fort Dodge, Mayor, Matt Bemrich ; Mason City, Airport Mgr., Pamela Osgood;

Mason City, Mayor, Eric Bookmeyer

Carrier, Air Choice One, Cindy Stork; Carrier, Air Choice One, Shane Storz; Carrier, Great

Lakes, Chuck Howell; Carrier, Great Lakes, Mike Matthews; Carrier, Great Lakes, Doug

Voss

Request for Comments at Fort Dodge and Mason City, Iowa

MSP-ORD EASbid FOD-MCW as of 02-21-14.pdf; Proposal to Provide Essential Air

Service at Fort Dodge Mason City Iowa Docket DOT-OST-200l-10682 DOTOST-2001-10684 respectively (Final).pdf; Order _2014-1- 20

_Requesti nqPro posals_On_An_Exped ited_Basis[1].pdf

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Hi All,

Attached above are the timely-filed proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Fort Dodge and Mason

City, Iowa, submitted by Great Lakes and by Air Choice One, in response to Order 2014-1-20. We are

currently reviewing those proposals. The attached proposals are directly from the carriers and will soon be

reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov as follows:

DOCKET DOT-OST-2001-10682; Fort Dodge

DOCKET DOT-OST-IOOI-I0684; Mason City

The Dockets will have other pertinent information as well.

The next step in the carrier-selection process is for you to provide us with your community's comments, a critically

important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Accordingly, I ask that

everyone get back to us, preferably by email, no later than March 14, 2014. We will docket this email, as well as any

replies.

In brief, look at the proposals and get back to us by the deadline, January 6, 2014. Obviously" if you have any

questions, please call me.

Best,

Kevin Adams

202-366-1047

1
No. 53960.

#### A & M Karagheusian, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147861-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: George M. Bishop, III v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Appellate case number: 01-18-01115-CV

Trial court case number: 36282

Trial court: 21st District Court of Washington County

Appellant, George M. Bishop. III, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

“Modified Judgment of Partially Probated Suspension.” And, appellant has filed a motion 

to stay “the active suspension” pending resolution of the appeal. We deny the motion to 

stay. See Tex. R. Disciplinary P. 3.13 (providing judgment of suspension may be stayed 

during pendency of appeal if district court finds, upon competent evidence, that 

appellant’s “continued practice of law does not pose a continuing threat to the welfare of 

[appellant’s] clients or to the public”); Favaloro v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 13 

S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (concluding appellant who did not 

show he filed trial court motion to stay suspension did not meet burden to prove 

continued practice of law did not pose threat).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 8, 2019___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY JOSEPH BIRDSONG : CIVIL ACTION

v. :

DONALD T. VAUGHN, et al. : NO. 02-2768

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2002, upon consideration of Relator's Petition

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is

ORDERED

1. The District Attorney shall file a specific and detailed answer to the

petition within 20 days from the date of this order pursuant to Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. §2254.

2. The Clerk of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County shall file with the

Clerk of this Court copies of ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING transcripts of Notes of Testimony

at Arraignment, Trial, Sentencing, Suppression Hearings, Post-Conviction Hearings, Petitions,

Pleadings, Opinions and Briefs of State Court proceedings in the matter of Commonwealth v.

Birdsong, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, No. CP 4080 to 4096, 4102, 4103,

8901, January Term, 1989 (Convicted October 27, 1989; Sentencing Judge - Judge Kidd Stout),

within 20 days of the date of this order.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

THOMAS J. RUETER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02768-NS Document 5 Filed 06/10/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

 : CIVIL ACTION

v. :

 : No. 09-cv-4294

SEAN FERRELL, :

 : 

Defendant. : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 : No. 04-cr-575

 : No. 04-cr-730

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2010, upon consideration

of Defendant/Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (Docs. No. 76/116), and responses thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED, for the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum,

that the Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.6


PEOPLES BANCORP INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020


SUMMARY OF BASE SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
OF PEOPLES BANCORP INC.


The base salaries of executive officers of Peoples Bancorp Inc. (“Peoples”) are determined by evaluating the most recent comparative peer data and the role and responsibilities of their positions.  Individual salary increases are reviewed annually and are based on Peoples' overall performance and the executive's attainment of specific individual business objectives during the preceding year.


The following table details the base salaries to be paid by Peoples and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021 to Charles W. Sulerzyski, President and Chief Executive Officer of Peoples; Katie Bailey, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Peoples; and the three other most highly compensated executive officers of Peoples serving as executive officers at December 31, 2020: 


									
	Name	Position/Title	Base Salary
	Charles W. Sulerzyski	President and Chief Executive Officer	$	645,000 	
			
	Katie Bailey	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	250,000 	
			
	Doug Wyatt	Executive Vice President, Chief Commercial Banking Officer	275,000 	
			
	Tyler Wilcox	Executive Vice President, Community Banking	250,000 	
			
	Jason Eakle	Executive Vice President, Chief Credit Officer	210,000
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Duke Capital Corporation ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith
G. Butler, Controller and Chief 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:

     (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.

  Date: May 16, 2003                               /s/ Keith G. Butler
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Keith G. Butler
                                                   Controller
                                                   and Chief Financial Officer

                                       38
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0077

SAT Date: 11/9/2012

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77

FATE: Estimations for typical 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 3.30 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.66 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)
log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through 

the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be 

a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the 

material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on 

cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the 

lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the 

moieties. Moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 3.1 aliphatic amine SAR

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.47 aliphatic amine SAR

green algal 96-h EC50 0.18 amide SAR

fish _ chronic value 0.023 amide SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.050 aliphatic amine SAR

algal _ chronic 

value

0.074 aliphatic amine SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; 

SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; liquid; log Kow = 4.21 (EPI); S = 

dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

2 amide SAR

SARs aliphatic amines and amides

SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide

Ecotox Category None
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 28 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 23 of 23
No. 49551.

#### Protests 94432-K, etc., of Albert Burki et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.