alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS IN THIS  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10QSB AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         707,728
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  95,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    29,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               878,835
<PP&E>                                         1,306,761
<DEPRECIATION>                                 175,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,033,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          466,783
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20,821
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,244,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,033,838
<SALES>                                        49,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               49,191
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  613,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (553,427)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.27)





</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-01880-LP Document 1 Filed 04/22/2005 Page 15 of 15
No. 49980.

#### Protests 934226-G, etc., of Heinsheimer Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items of the merchandise consisted of hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47291 and *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), which records were admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the items were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
No. 50920.

#### Protest 58645-K of F. R. Heryer (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the ease within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0488 Directorate ID : 2008 - SW - 002 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 206B and 206L Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 970 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to alert pilots to avoid certain engine speeds during steady- state operations, prevent failure of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopt er. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 20 for the decal Labor per Helicopter ( 0.5 work - hour x $ 8 5 /work - hour to update the RFM ) (0.2 work - hour x $85/work- hour to install the decal) $ 43

$17 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 80 Total US F leet Cost $ 77,600 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Chinh Vuong
Order entered December 27, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01498

- CR

JEREMY DEMOND WARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194t h Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 75030

- M



### O RDER

Before the Court is the State’s December 20, 2019 motion for extension of time to file its

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received that same day filed as of the date

of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
<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, 2009,
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 13, 2009                By:  /s/ Kenneth K. Westbrook
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Kenneth K. Westbrook
                                           Chief Executive Officer
**PERMANENT REDUCTION TO GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION**

**EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2019**

**PREPARED BY:**

**GENERAL LEDGER AND ADVISORY BRANCH**

**FISCAL ACCOUNTING**

**BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE**

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY**

Page 22 of 25

**August 2018**

Page 23 of 25

**August 2018**

**PERMANENT REDUCTION TO GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION**

**EFFECTIVE FISCAL 2019**

**PERMANENT REDUCTION TO GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION**

**EFFECTIVE FISCAL 2019**

**Introduction**

General Fund appropriations are derived from the General Fund of the U.S. Government (General Fund) as specified in an Appropriations Act or Authorization Act (i.e. Mandatory Appropriation) and are posted to a Treasury Appropriation Symbol (TAS) by a Treasury warrant.  Similarly, a General Fund of the U.S. Government appropriation can be reduced by a Treasury warrant. For reductions against a General Fund Appropriation, the transactions are classified as permanent because the amount is returned to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury whereas a temporary reduction is not returned to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.  

The following two USSGL accounts are highlighted in this scenario.

· 439200 Permanent Reduction - New Budget Authority

· 439300 Permanent Reduction - Prior-Year Balances

Rescissions and cancellations of the General Fund appropriations are considered to be permanent reductions unless the legislation clearly indicates that the reduction is temporary. Permanent reductions of General Fund appropriations revert back to the General Fund of the U.S. Government. Reductions of contract authority and borrowing authority are also usually permanent. (OMB Circular No. A-11 Section 20). Permanent reductions are recorded on distinct SF 133 and Budget Schedule P line numbers (OMB Circular No. A-11 Appendix F). For more information on how to record a reduction, please see OMB Circular No. A-11.

This scenario captures permanent reductions of the General Fund appropriations. For report presentation purposes, the fund in this scenario is considered discretionary and does not expire at the end of year 1 or 2.  In year 1, USSGL account 439200, “Permanent Reduction – New Budget Authority” is used to reflect a reduction of new budget authority provided to a general fund appropriation.  Similarly, a reduction of prior-year balances derived from a general fund appropriation is reflected in USSGL account 439300, “Permanent Reduction – Prior-Year Balances” in year 2.

**Listing of USSGL Accounts Used in This Scenario**

*For USSGL Account Definitions, please refer to the USSGL Treasury Financial Manual Supplement, Section II, Accounts and Definitions

*A beginning Trial Balance is not used in this scenario.*

**Year 1**

**Illustrative Transactions**

**Year 1 Closing Entries**

**Reclassified Statements**

**Year 2**

**Year 2**

**Year 2 Closing Entries**

**Reclassified Statements**

Page 25 of 25

**August 2018**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WIZKIDS CREATIONS CO., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-4358

 v. :

:

C.B.S. INC. and :

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING :

SERVICES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this ____ day of ______________, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief With Trespass Proven is hereby DENIED.

________________________________

Brody, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 15 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WIZKIDS CREATIONS CO., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-4358

 v. :

:

C.B.S. INC. and :

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING :

SERVICES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF WITH TRESPASS PROVEN

Defendant Columbia Broadcasting Services Inc. (“CBS”) hereby opposes

plaintiff’s “Move for Relief with Trespass Proven.” The motion is incomprehensible. Defendant

maintains that it has not infringed any copyright or committed any trespass and reiterates all of

the arguments set forth in its pending motion to dismiss.

Dated: November 27, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

Gayle Chatilo Sproul

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 15 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 2 of 3
800560.1.50 11/26/02 5:11 PM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date caused a copy of Defendant’s Response in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief With Trespass Proven to be served by first-class mail

upon the plaintiff pro se as follows:

WizKids Creations Co.

c/o Larry Hackney

5422 Chester Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19143

Dated: November 27, 2002 ___________________________

Gayle Chatilo Sproul

Case 2:02-cv-04358-AB Document 15 Filed 11/27/2002 Page 3 of 3
1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2505

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Shawn M. Ross, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 24, 2007 

Filed: October 29, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn M. Ross appeals the 70-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture at least 35 grams but less

than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), and 846. On appeal, Ross’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ross was

denied effective assistance of counsel.
-2-

We adhere to the general rule that Ross must raise his claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be

properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.

2003). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district

court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform

appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ :

FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) :

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : MDL DOCKET NO. 1203

:

___________________________________:

:

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: :

:

MARTINEZ, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20135

WYETH, et al. :

Defendants. :

___________________________________:

:

MELDER, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20142

WYETH, et al. :

Defendants. :

___________________________________:

PRETRIAL ORDER NO.

AND NOW, this ____ day of _____________, 2004, it is hereby

ORDERED that Report and Recommendation No. 13 of Special

Discovery Master (as to Wyeth’s Motion to Strike in the Martinez

and Melder Matters) is hereby AFFIRMED.

It is further ORDERED that:

(1) Wyeth’s Motion to Strike in the Martinez and Melder

Matters (Doc. No. 204553)is DENIED;

(2) Plaintiffs be sanctioned ________for failure to comply

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f); and

Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 10-2 Filed 07/12/2004 Page 1 of 2
(3) Plaintiff Martinez shall supplement her expert report

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

Harvey Bartle III J.

Case 2:02-cv-20142-HB Document 10-2 Filed 07/12/2004 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD TYRONE SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-132, CA-97-309-AM)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Tyrone Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-94-132; CA-97-309-AM (E.D.

Va. Mar. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 56330.

protest 168021-K (New York).

#### Novelty Veiling Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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-04316-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-04316-BWK Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
Devany , Denni s (OST ) \iOT
- 0^7 - l9l1 ^ >^^^ ^ From : 100 0 Island s Parrot Hea d Clu b [tiparrotheads@yahoo.com ] Sent : Thursday , Novembe r11 , 201 0 1:0 3 P M To : RobertH@co.jefferson.ny.u s Cc : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Subject : Re : Publi c Suppor t fo rCap e Ai rProposa l fo rEA S Servic e

— J r o > o U J

_ o f-;- ^

^--. O
fTi-^ m ^ ^ ^ 

### ^S- ^ 

## o g ^ C O Correctio n o n mistype d addres s The correc t

addres s i s a s follows : 100 0 Island s Parro t

Hea d Clu b P.O
. Bo x 826 3 Watertown , N

Y 1360 1 A B

—O n Thu , 11/11/10,100 0 Island s Parro t Hea d Clu b <tiparrotheads(a)vahoo
. com> wrote : From : 100 0 Island s Parro t

Hea d Clu b <tiparrotheads@vahoo.com> Subject : Publi c Suppor

t fo r Cap e Air Proposa l fo r EA S Servic e To : RobertH@co.jefferson.nv.u s Cc : Dennis.DeVany(a),ost.dot.gov Date : Thursday , Novembe

r 11 , 2010 , 12:4 9 P

M
Dea r Mr
. Hagemann , Ove r the pas t fe w week s th e proces s o f

rebiddin g fo

r EA S servic e t

o Ogdensburg , Massen aan d Watertow

n ha s bee n ongoing
. Whil e th e 100

0 Island s Parro t

Hea d Clu b ha s ha d a n opportunit

y i n publi c foru

mt o show ou r suppor t fo r the Cap e Ai

r proposa l fo r continue d servic e i

n bot h Ogdensbur

g and Massena , w

e hav e bee n unable t o find an y publi c foru

mi n Watertow n an

d Jefferson Count

y t o sho w ou r support . Ca

n yo u pleas e advis e o

n whe n we ca n spea k out publicl y in suppor

t of Cap e Air ? W e a t the 100 0 Island s Parro t

Hea d Clu b hav e ha d th e opportunit

y to wor k wit h Cap e Ai r ove r th e pas t thre e summers i n connectio n wit

h ou r 100 0 Island s Parro t

Hea d Gol f Outing to benefi

t th e Mak e A Wis h Foundatio n o f Centra l Ne w York
. Cap e Air' s generous , hands-o n suppor t ha s helpe d u s forwar

d ove r $10,00 0 on t

o Mak e A Wis h ove r th e pas t thre e years . During th e las t

round of bidding , no publi c foru

mwa s offere

d i n Watertow n an

d th e Jefferso

n Count y endorsemen

t of anothe r airlin e wa s mad

e a t th e final hou

r of th e publi c commen

t period , giving no tim

e fo r a publi c respons e wit

h opposin g views
. W

e hop e thi s will no t

be the cas e agai n thi s time
. Wil l yo u pleas e le t u s kno w whe

n we migh t b e allowe d t

o sho w ou r suppor t fo r Cap e Ai r publicly befor

e th e deadline fo

r publi c commen

t ha s expired ? Than k you ,Andre aBos , Presiden t 100 0 Island s Parrot

Hea d Clu b P.O
. Bo x 836 3 Watertown , N

Y 1360 1
No. 52917.

#### J. A. Price *v.*United States,

protest 130031-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official papers .disclosing that the protest was not filed within the statutory period of 60 days after the date of liquidation, as required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
Case 2:05-cv-02162-JCJ   Document 3   Filed 07/11/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:05-cv-02162-JCJ   Document 3   Filed 07/11/05   Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TONG HO ZHANG, A-70-577-572 : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. :

 :

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney :

General and IMMIGRATION and :

NATURALIZATION SERVICE :

Respondents. : NO. 02-4377

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2002, IT IS ORDERED that Joseph C.

Hohenstein, Esquire, is APPOINTED as counsel for petitioner, Tong Ho Zhang, in this matter

pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Mr. Hohenstein shall

promptly obtain the necessary forms for appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act

and submit them to the Court for signature.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. The Government shall promptly serve Mr. Hohenstein with a copy of its response to

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and,

2. On or before September 23, 2002, counsel shall file and serve a joint status report with

regard to further proceedings in the case. One (1) copy of the status report shall be served on the

Court (Chambers, Room 12613) when the original is filed.

BY THE COURT:

 

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04377-JD Document 10 Filed 09/03/2002 Page 1 of 1