alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 63067.

#### Frazer & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/13533 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to search, view and prepare a deposit, search for adjustments and view reports in OTCnet. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 DEPOSIT PROCESSING MODULE 10: SEARCHING DEPOSITS Certificate icon10.1 Search for a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoSearch for a DepositDownload Search Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 11: VIEWING DEPOSITS Certificate icon11.1 View a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoView a Deposit
 MODULE 12: SEARCHING ADJUSTMENTS Certificate icon12.1 Search for and View an Adjustment
            PJA
            VideoSearch for and View an AdjustmentDownload Search Adjustment Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 13: PREPARING DEPOSITS Certificate icon13.1 Create and Modify a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoCreate a Deposit for US CurrencyCreate a Deposit for Foreign Currency CashCreate a Deposit for a Foreign Check ItemModify a Deposit
 MODULE 15: CONFIRMING DEPOSITS Certificate icon15.1 Confirm a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoConfirm a Single DepositConfirm Multiple DepositsReject a Deposit
 MODULE 17: VIEWING DEPOSIT PROCESSING AND HISTORICAL REPORTS 17.1 View a Business Report
            PJA
            VideoView Business Reports: Adjustment Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Adjustments by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Daily Voucher ReportView Business Reports: Deposit Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Deposits by Accounting CodeView Business Reports: Deposits by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Deposit History by StatusView Business Reports: Non-Reporting OTC EndpointsView Business Reports: Processing Options by OTC Endpoints17.3 View an Administration ReportView Administrative Reports: CIR File StatusView Administration Reports: View Vouchers CompletedView Administrative Reports: Vouchers in Progress17.4 View Historical ReportsDeposit Historical ReportAdjustment Historical ReportView Previously Generated Historical Reports
 Welcome
No. 52591.

protests 139965-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise invoiced as cod-liver oil pulp residue, cod-liver oil pulp, or cod-liver oil residue is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(20 Cust. Ct. 66, C. D. 1085), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1780 was sustained.
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

KENDALL NEWMAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2821

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RECORDS, ) CIV-S-04-0944 GEB/JFM

)

Plaintiff, )

) STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

v. ) AND (PROPOSED) ORDER

 ) OF DISMISSAL 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Pursuant to the terms of a written Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to the provisions

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate

that this action be dismissed with prejudice.

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-00944-GEB -JFM Document 16 Filed 07/01/05 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 2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: June 29, 2005 /s/ MAURICE B. SMITH

MAURICE B. SMITH, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: June 29, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ KENDALL J. NEWMAN

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The above stipulation is APPROVED, and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

Dated: June 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00944-GEB -JFM Document 16 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6607

LINDA ANN TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLORIA JEAN RACKLEY; E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Leath Correctional Institution; CHARLESKEARNEY, JR., Captain; DIANE HAMRICK, Lieutenant; MELISSA WHITT; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major;BARBARA L. PARTILEDGE, Officer; R. IRBY, Mental Health Counselor; DIANE LITWER, Grievance Coordinator; RANCE COBB, Principal; BETTY FLEMING, Sergeant; V. C. HILL, Lieutenant;BARBARA SHUMATE, of Operations at Leath Correctional Institution; T. J. PHILSON, Captain; SHERRI CHANDLER, Administrative Assistant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-2845-4-22BF) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, BURNS, MCDONALD, BRADFORD, PATRICK & TINSLEY, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Linda Ann Tyler appeals from the denial of her motion for appointment of counsel. We grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss theappeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Thus, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispensewith 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
Top of page

Skip to main content

Library of Congress

              - Discover
              - Services
              - Visit
              - Education
              - Connect
              - Shop *external link*
              - Donate
              - About
              - Ask a Librarian
              - Help
              - Contact
              - Search Online Catalog
              - Copyright.gov
              - Congress.gov

Library of Congress
Events at the Library of Congress
Concerts from the Library of Congress
Concerts From The Library of Congress
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Merrick Jose Moore,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0871 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

J. Sloss, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoAugust 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a First Set of

Interrogatories. 

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be

filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c). Plaintiff must serve his discovery on defendants 

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 23 Filed 08/17/05 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

directly.

Plaintiff’s August 4, 2005, First Set of Interrogatories is

stricken and the clerk of the court shall make a notation thereon

to that effect.

So ordered.

Dated: August 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 23 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2
Resolutions to be Considered by


AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO ARCADIA RESOURCES, INC.

2008 EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE BASED COMPENSATION PLAN


THIS AMENDMENT NO. ONE (this "Amendment") TO ARCADIA RESOURCES, INC. 2008 EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE BASED COMPENSATION PLAN (the "Plan") is approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of Arcadia Resources, Inc. (the "Company") this 14th  day of July, 2008.  Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings provided such terms in the Plan.  



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Section 1 of the Plan shall be amended and restated to read and be read as followed:


3.Effective Date; Term of Plan.  The effective date of the Plan is May 1, 2008 and shall first apply to the Company's 2009 Plan Year (April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009).  When determined by the Board to be necessary and appropriate under Section 162(m), this Plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Company's shareholders at the next annual meeting of shareholders.  In the event that this Plan is not so approved by shareholders after having been submitted for approval after recommendation by the Board, this Plan shall cease to be effective and will terminate with respect to all subsequent Plan Years.  The Plan shall continue until terminated under Section 16 of the Plan.


This Amendment is limited as specified and shall not constitute a modification, acceptance or waiver of any other provision of the Agreement. The Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms except as expressly waived or modified hereby. From and after the date hereof, all references in the Plan shall be deemed to be references to the Plan after giving effect to this Agreement.



 
Approved and Adopted by 

the Board of Directors 

of Arcadia Resources, Inc., 

this 14th day of July, 2008



 

/s/ Michelle M. Molin

Michelle M. Molin

Executive Vice President, General Counsel & 

Corporate Secretary
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for 

Settlement: Case No. CIV-S02-1881 DFL/PAN — 1 — G:\DOCS\LEV\3. Signed Orders to be Processed\04cv957.o.doc g:\docs\lev

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 

LAW OFFICES OF

PAUL L. REIN 

200 LAKESIDE DR., SUITE A

OAKLAND, CA 94612-3503 

(510) 832-5001

PAUL L. REIN, Esq. (SBN 43053) 

PATRICIA BARBOSA, Esq. (SBN 125865) 

JULIE MCLEAN, Esq. (SBN 215202) 

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 

200 Lakeside Dr., Suite A 

Oakland, CA 94612 

(510) 832-5001 

Attorney for Plaintiff: 

CHRISTINE BURKE, a minor, by her 

Guardian Ad Litem, RANDY BURKE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTINE BURKE, a minor, by 

her Guardian Ad Litem, RANDY 

BURKE 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEAVENLY VALLEY, LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP; VAIL RESORTS, 

INC.; VR HEAVENLY I, INC.; 

and DOES 1 through 50, 

Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CIV-S04-957 DFL/PAN 

Civil Rights

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL 

OF SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR'S 

CLAIMS 

Pursuant to Local Rule 17-202 

Hearing: 

Date: May 4, 2005 

Time: 10:00 am 

Place: U.S. District Courthouse 

 501 “I” Street 

 Sacramento, CA 

Judge: Hon. David F. Levi 

/ 

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Settlement of 

Minor’s Claims came on for hearing before this Court on May 4, 

2005. 

 After considering the moving and opposition papers, 

arguments of counsel and all other matters presented to the 

Court, the Court finds that plaintiff's Motion for Approval of 

Settlement of Minor’s Claims, should be granted IT IS HEREBY 

Case 2:04-cv-00957-DFL -PAN Document 48 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 2
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for 

Settlement: Case No. CIV-S02-1881 DFL/PAN — 2 — G:\DOCS\LEV\3. Signed Orders to be Processed\04cv957.o.doc g:\docs\lev

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 

LAW OFFICES OF

PAUL L. REIN 

200 LAKESIDE DR., SUITE A

OAKLAND, CA 94612-3503 

(510) 832-5001

ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Settlement of 

Minor’s Claims is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/9/2005 

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00957-DFL -PAN Document 48 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ISS GROUP, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         133,976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                       347
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,812
<PP&E>                                           6,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,986
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,375
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
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

GREGORY ESKRIDGE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0865 LKK GGH P

vs.

A. CORREA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 36 Filed 12/05/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 21, 2005

motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 12/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

eskr0865.31

 

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 36 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/4/2022 1

No Relief from a 2019 Voter-Registration Purge 

in Ohio 

Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose 

(James L. Graham, S.D. Ohio 2:19-cv-3774) 

A district judge denied relief from imminent purging of voter-registration records, because the plaintiff political party had not presented 

sufficient evidence of widespread errors in the purging process that 

would not be corrected. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration 

procedures; Help America Vote Act (HAVA). 

A political party filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of Ohio on 

Friday, August 30, 2019, eleven days before some Ohio municipalities would 

hold primary elections, alleging that a process underway to purge voter registrations would purge valid registrations.1

 Attached to its complaint, the party 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge James L. Graham held telephone conferences at 3:00 p.m. on the day 

that the case was filed and at 1:00 p.m. four days later.3 Judge Graham set the 

case for a preliminary-injunction hearing on September 94 and denied the 

party a temporary restraining order on September 3.5

The party cited news and other reports of errors, but it did not provide any 

evidence of errors.6 Public concessions by Ohio’s secretary of state of corrected 

errors were not evidence of current errors, and they were evidence of care in 

finding and correcting errors.7

On the day of Judge Graham’s ruling, the plaintiff party voluntarily dismissed its case.8

1. Complaint, Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 2:19-cv-3774 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 

2019), D.E. 1; Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 402 F. Supp. 3d 419, 420, 422 (S.D. Ohio 

2019). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, D.E. 1-1; Motion, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 2:19-cv-3774 

(S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2019), D.E. 2; Ohio Democratic Party, 402 F. Supp. 3d at 420, 422. 

3. Minutes, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 2:19-cv-3774 (S.D. Ohio Aug. Sept. 3, 2019), D.E. 

12; Docket Sheet, id. (Aug. 30, 2019) (D.E. 6); Ohio Democratic Party, 402 F. Supp. 3d at 422. 

4. Notice, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 2:19-cv-3774 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2019), D.E. 13; 

Ohio Democratic Party, 402 F. Supp. 3d at 422. 

5. Ohio Democratic Party, 402 F. Supp. 3d 419; see Jim Provance, Judge: Ohio Voter Purge 

May Go On, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 5, 2019; Andrew J. Tobias, Voter Purge to Proceed After 

Block Request Denied by Judge, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 4, 2019, at A1; see also Monroe 

Trombly, LaRose Defends Voter Roll Removals, Mansfield News J., Sept. 11, 2019, at A2. 

6. Ohio Democratic Party, 402 F. Supp. 3d at 423–24. 

7. Id. at 424–25.

8. Notice, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 2:19-cv-3774 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2019), D.E. 15.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/14/2023 1

Unsuccessful Challenge 

to Close Election Defeats in New Rochelle 

McLaughlin v. Allen 

(Charles L. Brieant, S.D.N.Y. 7:03-cv-9886) 

A district judge denied immediate relief to two city-council candidates trailing by handfuls of votes after unsuccessful state-court 

challenges to election results. Nearly a year later, the judge granted 

the defendants summary judgment. 

Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Enjoining certification; 

matters for state courts; case assignment. 

Two candidates for different seats on New Rochelle’s city council and ten 

voters supporting the candidates filed a federal complaint in the Southern 

District of New York on December 12, 2003, seeking federal relief from the 

candidates’ close defeats in the November 4 election.1 The federal action followed unsuccessful proceedings by the candidates in state court.2

The court assigned the case to Judge Charles L. Brieant, who had issued 

an opinion two days before in litigation over the council’s district lines.3 Following a hearing on the day the candidates’ complaint was filed, Judge 

Brieant denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.4

 Following a hearing on October 8, 2004, Judge Brieant granted the defendants summary judgment.5

1. Complaint, McLaughlin v. Allen, No. 7:03-cv-9886 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2003), D.E. 1; 

see Defendant’s Summary-Judgment Brief at 9, id. (July 17, 2004), D.E. 20 (reporting that 

ultimately one plaintiff lost by eighteen votes and another lost by eight votes); see also Len 

Maniace, Democrats Repel GOP Challenge of 2nd, 4th District Wins, Westchester Cty. J. 

News, Oct. 9, 2004, at 3B. 

2. See Defendant’s Summary-Judgment Brief, supra note 1, at 14–15; Elizabeth Ganga, 

Republicans Challenge Council Election Results, Westchester Cty. J. News, Nov. 27, 2003, at 

3B. 

3. Order, McLaughlin, No. 7:03-cv-9886 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2003), D.E. 2; see New Rochelle Voter Defense Fund v. City of New Rochelle, 308 F. Supp. 2d 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 

(ordering redistricting); Docket Sheet, New Rochelle Republican Comm. v. City of New Rochelle, No. 7:03-cv-3965 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2003); Docket Sheet, New Rochelle Voter Rights 

Defense Fund v. City of New Rochelle, No. 7:03-cv-3764 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2003). 

Judge Brieant died on July 20, 2008. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Order, McLaughlin, No. 7:03-cv-9886 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2003), D.E. 4; Docket Sheet, 

id. (Dec. 12, 2003) [hereinafter McLaughlin Docket Sheet]. 

5. Judgment, id. (Oct. 14, 2004), D.E. 32; McLaughlin Docket Sheet, supra note 4; see Maniace, supra note 1.