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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

The undersigned, Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary, of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the "Annual Report") accompanying
this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented as required by such report. The
foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities
as principal financial officer of the Company, my own due diligence and
representations made by certain other members of the Company's senior
management.

Date: September 28, 2004

                                 /s/ Jeffrey D. Gash
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Jeffrey D. Gash
                                 Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary
                                 (Principal Financial Officer)
No. 46105.

#### Protests 969723-G, etc., of Olavarria & Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Jump to main content.

Office of Inspector General

Recent Additions | Contact Us**Search:**All EPAThis Area

    - You are here:  EPA Home
    >
    Audits, Evaluations & Other Publications
     >
    Business Systems Reports

----

# 	  EPA Implementation of GovernmentPerformance and Results Act

#  EPA Office of Inspector General

# EPA Implementation of Government Performance and Results Act

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
      PURPOSE    
     BACKGROUND    
     RESULTS IN BRIEF    
     RECOMMENDATIONS    
     AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION    

CHAPTER 1
      INTRODUCTION    
        Purpose      
 Background      

 Scope and Methodology      

 Prior Audit Coverage      

CHAPTER 2
      EPA'S PLANNING, BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTABILITY TASK FORCE ESTABLISHED A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNMENTPERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT    

CHAPTER 3
      EPA CAN BETTER ARTICULATE ITS DIRECTION BY FINALIZING ITS ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, UPDATING ITS STRATEGIC PLAN, AND DEVELOPINGA CLEARER AND MORE COMPLETE MISSION STATEMENT    
        EPA Needs To Finalize its National Environmental Goals      
 EPA Needs To Develop Agency Goals      

 EPA Needs to Update Its Strategic Plan - "A New Generation ofEnvironmental Protection"      

 A Clearer and More Complete Mission Statement Will ProvideGuidance and Focus for the Agency      

        RECOMMENDATIONS    
     AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION    

CHAPTER 4
      RESULTS ORIENTED MANAGEMENT REQUIRES TIMELY, ACCURATE, ANDCOMPLETE PERFORMANCE DATA    
        Some Performance Plans Did Not Discuss How Performance Data Will Be Verified andValidated      
 Prior Audits Have Identified Problems With Data Quality      

 Some Agency Program Offices Have Developed Techniques to Verify and ValidatePerformance Data      

 Policies and Procedures for Program Evaluations Need to be Established      

        RECOMMENDATIONS    
     AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION    

CHAPTER 5
      COST INFORMATION IS CRITICAL TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPRA    
        Tracking the Cost of GPRA Performance Pilots      
 Tracking the Cost of EPA's Performance Partnership Grants      

 Federal Cost Accounting Requirements      

 Implementing Cost Accounting Within EPA      

        RECOMMENDATIONS    
     AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION    

 APPENDIX I - AGENCY COMMENTS (only available in hardcopy)      

APPENDIX II - REPORT DISTRIBUTIONLIST

----

    - EPA OIG Home Page 
    - EPA Home Page 

Modified February 28, 1997

Top of page

 

----

### Local Navigation

    - OIG Home
    - About EPA OIG
    - Electronic Reading Room
    - Federal & Congressional Reports
    - Planning & Performance Documents
    - Public Liaison (Ombudsman) & Hotline
    - Investigations
    - OIG Newsroom
    - Disaster Response
    - Compendium of Environmental Programs
    - Freedom of Information Act
    - Career Opportunities
    - Helpful Links
    - How to Contact Us

----

    - FirstGov
    - White House

----

    - EPA Home
    - Privacy and Security Notice
    - Contact Us

Jump to main content.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1296 WBS KJM

JESSE S. KAPLAN - State Bar No. SBN 103726

3620 American River Dr., Ste 224

Sacramento, CA 95864

Tel (916) 489-5953

Facsimile: (916) 489-9297

Attorney for Plaintiff

KENNETH CHRISTENSEN

RIMAC & MARTIN

a Professional Corporation

ANNA M. MARTIN - State Bar No. 154279

WILLIAM REILLY - State Bar No. 177550

1051 Divisadero Street

San Francisco, CA 94115

Telephone: (415) 561-8440

Facsimile: (415) 561-8430 

Attorneys for Defendant

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-FILED

KENNETH CHRISTENSEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1296 WBS KJM

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AND ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-01296-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1296 WBS KJM

It is HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff KENNETH CHRISTENSEN and

Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company by and through their counsel, that the above-captioned

action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41 (a) (1) (ii).

SO STIPULATED.

LAW OFFICES OF JESSE S. KAPLAN

___________/s/________________________

DATED: April 18, 2005 By: JESSE S. KAPLAN

Attorney for Plaintiff

KENNETH CHRISTENSEN

DATED: April 18, 2005 RIMAC & MARTIN

A Professional Corporation

By: ____________/s/______________________

 WILLIAM REILLY

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01296-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20633 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4-01-CR-121-8

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Ramirez (Ramirez) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine. He was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Ramirez appeals his sentence, asserting that the appeal waiver provision in his guilty plea is void and that his sentencing is illegal in light of Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).No. 03-20633 -2- Ramirez contends that the Government breached the plea agreement by opposing an acceptance of responsibility credit. Absent any objection in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Reeves , 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). Whether the Government’s conduct violates the terms of the plea agreement is a question of law which this court reviews de novo . United States v. Gonzalez , 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). “In determining whether the terms of the plea bargain have been violated, this court must determine whether the government’s conduct is consistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement.” Gonzales , 309 F.3d at 886 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). A review of the record reveals that the Government did breach the plea agreement by opposing Ramirez’s acceptance of responsibility credit. As a result, the plea agreement, including the restriction on Ramirez’s right to appeal, is void. Ramirez can therefore, appeal his sentence, which he has done, and we can consider his appeal. For the first time on appeal, Ramirez argues that his sentence is illegal in light of Blakely . This argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent opinion in United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465-73 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JULIO C. NOVOA, M.D.

,

A ppellant, §

§

§ No. 08

- 1 2

- 00 2 54

- C V

Appeal from the

34th District Court

v

. §

of El Paso County, Texas

DALIA DE LA RIVA,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT

AND NEXT FRIEND OF DANIELLA

DE LA RIVA, A MINOR,

A ppellee. §

§

§

§ (TC# 2009

- 1494 )

MEMO RANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellant, Julio C. Novoa , M.D., to dismiss

the appeal because the parties have settled all disputes between them

. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1. We

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal

. The motion does not reflect that the parties have made

any agreement regarding costs. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Appellant. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the

appellant).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

January 29 , 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In re AMERICAN INVESTORS LIFE 

INSURANCE CO. ANNUITY 

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES 

LITIGATION 

 MDL Docket No. 1712 

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL 

OF SETTLEMENT, CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND AWARD 

OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for the reasons set forth in the 

memorandum of law, filed contemporaneously herewith and which is incorporated herein by 

reference, Plaintiffs Richard M. and Dena F. Stein, Mary Lynch, Charlotte and Beryl Price, the 

Estate of Joseph Healy, George J. Miller, Jean Ryles, Evelyn K. Edwards, Dorothy Eddy, and 

Michael J. and Catherine M. Quinn, in their individual capacities and as representatives of the 

putative class, hereby request final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement (“Settlement 

Stipulation” or “Settlement”), which was attached to the Motion for Preliminary Approval, as 

Exhibit “1”. The Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, as a consideration of the factors set 

forth in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) demonstrates. 

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for a final order conditionally certifying, for 

settlement purposes only, the class as defined in the Settlement. The Plaintiffs further seek an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $18,250,000, and incentive payments to the 

twelve named Plaintiffs in the total amount of $115,000. 

In accordance with Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiffs certify that they have conferred with 

Defendants and that Defendants do not oppose this Motion. 

Case 2:05-md-01712-MAM Document 443 Filed 10/30/09 Page 1 of 3
2

 In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs have filed herewith a Memorandum of Law, with 

supporting exhibits. Plaintiffs also submit a proposed form of order. 

 WHEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

this relief, as set forth in the proposed order, should be GRANTED. 

Dated: October 30, 2009 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Jonathan Auerbach/JA1194 

Jonathan Auerbach, Esquire 

 Jerome M. Marcus, Esquire 

MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC 

400 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 200 

Wyncote, PA 19095 

(215) 885-2250 

(888) 875-0469 (fax) 

 HARGROVE, PIERSON & BROWN 

 John R. Hargrove, Esquire 

 Cristina Pierson, Esquire 

 21 Southeast 5th Street 

 Suite 200 

 Boca Raton, FL 33432 

 (561) 300-3900 

 (561) 300-3890 (fax) 

 Co-lead and Interim Class Counsel 

Case 2:05-md-01712-MAM Document 443 Filed 10/30/09 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 30th day of October, 2009 a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Motion, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law and the exhibits 

thereto, were electronically filed and served by ECF on the all counsel listed on the MDL 

1712 Master Service List. 

 /s/ Jonathan Auerbach /1194 

 Jonathan Auerbach 

Case 2:05-md-01712-MAM Document 443 Filed 10/30/09 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit32.2**

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity asChief Financial Officer of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”),that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and the results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
|  |   | By: /s/ Mark J. BonneyMark J. Bonney  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief  Accounting Officer |
|--|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: August 11,2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
0 WxT*. 5^p 9 <r e 

Adak Community Development Corporation 

P. O. Box 1943 

Adak, Alaska 99546 

March 22,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ref: Essential Air Service for Adak, Alaska 

DOT-OST-2000-8556 i ' 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Adak Community Development Corporation (ACDC), an Adak non-profit fisherman's organization that is 

an owner of quota shares of Western Aleutian Gold King Crab, joins the Adak Community in its strong 

unanimous support of Alaska Airlines continuing its quality air service to Adak as provided since 2003. 

ACDC, as owner of quota shares of the above-mentioned golden king crab, has been discussing plans 

with the carrier for the shipment of live crab to points beyond Anchorage, that could conceivably begin 

as early as in the coming year, based on the current service provided by the carrier, using its Boeing 737-

400 Combination Cargo/passenger jets. While this plan has yet to be further worked out and finalized, 

both parties agree that such shipment of live crab is do-able, and a great investment opportunity for 

Adak. ACDC in its long term planning is also examining other opportunities for the shipment of other 

live or fresh/fresh-frozen fish products from Adak, given the current combination passenger/cargo 

service that is provided by Alaska Airlines. 

Adak has experienced many setbacks along its road towards economic development, and it truly cannot 

afford too many more setbacks. Your support of Adak maintaining the service it currently enjoys with 

Alaska Airlines will have greatly helped towards the development of Adak as a major economic hub for 

the Western Aleutians - and a major crossroad of the continents that it was meant to be. 

Sincerely, 

Michael E. Swetzof 

President 

ms/ak
Amendment Number One to Capital Support Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.8 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment Number One (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as
of the 15th day of July 2008, by and between, NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and NORTHERN TRUST INVESTMENTS, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of
the NTGI Collective Short Term Investment Fund. 
 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the
“Agreement”), dated as of February 21, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and
subject to the conditions provided herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Section 3(c)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as set forth below: 

 “(iii) 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2009.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Capital Support Agreement to be executed this 15th day of July, 2008. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	50 South LaSalle Street
	Chicago, IL 60603
	Attention: William R. Dodds
	
	 NORTHERN TRUST INVESTMENTS, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of the NTGI Collective Short Term
 Investment Fund

		
	By:	 	 /s/ John L. Krieg

	Name:	 	John L. Kreig
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	50 South LaSalle Street
	Chicago, IL 60603
	Attention: John L. Krieg
EXHIBIT 21



FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION



|                                           |  |                              
|------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|SUBSIDIARY                                 |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|Fleet National Bank                        |  | United States                
|Fleet Bank (RI), National Association      |  | United States                
|Fleet Credit Card Holdings, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|Fleet Holding Corp.                        |  | Rhode Island                 
|Fleet Capital Corporation                  |  | Rhode Island                 
|Fleet Leasing Partners I, L.P.             |  | Rhode Island                 
|Fleet Business Credit, LLC                 |  | Delaware                     
|Boston World Holding Corporation           |  | Massachusetts                
|Boston Overseas Financial Corporation S.A. |  | Argentina                    
|Columbia Management Group, Inc.            |  | Delaware                     
|Fleet Growth Resources, Inc.               |  | Rhode Island                 
|Quick & Reilly/Fleet Securities, Inc.      |  | Delaware                     
|BancBoston Investments Inc.                |  | Massachusetts                
|BancBoston Capital, Inc.                   |  | Massachusetts
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0449 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 11, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 9/16/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES COLLINS, ) No. CIV-S-04-43 GEB (PAN)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER RE SETTLEMENT

) 

CHLN, INC., a California )

corporation, dba CHART HOUSE )

RESTAURANT, MAMMOTH MALL )

MANAGEMENT, INC., a California )

corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On July 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement

stating the case has settled and “Counsel anticipate being able to

submit a Request for Dismissal of the within action to the Court for

order within thirty (30) days.” The parties have until 4:30 p.m. on

August 15, 2005, to submit a Request for Dismissal. See L.R. 16-

160(b). Failure to file the Request for Dismissal may be construed as

consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice and a dismissal

order may be filed. See L.R. 16-160(b) (“A failure to file

dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be

grounds for sanctions.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00043-GEB -KJM Document 21 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order Permitting Defendants to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition & Granting Request to Extend Time to file Dispostive

Motions

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. FANNON, et al,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-1317 MCE GGH P

ORDER PERMITTING

DEFENDANTS TO TAKE

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION &

GRANTING REQUEST TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

The Court having considered Defendants’ request for leave to take Plaintiff’s

deposition after the discovery deadline and request to extend the time for the filing of dispositive

motions, finds good cause exist to permit Defendant to take Plaintiff’s deposition in this action

and to extend the time for dispositive motions. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall have until the close of business on

June 29, 2006, to take Plaintiff’s deposition. In addition, dipositive motions will now be due on

or before August 4, 2006.

DATED: 5/24/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wash1317.sch

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 56 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 1