alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/21 S

| | ISSN 1725-2571 |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | C NaN |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 4921 Samhain 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2571

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

C NaN

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

4921 Samhain 2006

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Ceartúchán |
| 2006/C /1 | Ceartúchán ar Fógra Comórtais Oscailte (EPSO/AD/45/06) chun painéal a chruthú óna n-earcófar riarthóirí teanga i réimse an aistriúcháin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge mar phríomhtheanga acu (Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 104 A an 3 Bealtaine 2006) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúchán

2006/C /1

Ceartúchán ar Fógra Comórtais Oscailte (EPSO/AD/45/06) chun painéal a chruthú óna n-earcófar riarthóirí teanga i réimse an aistriúcháin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge mar phríomhtheanga acu (Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 104 A an 3 Bealtaine 2006)

(Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 104 A an 3 Bealtaine 2006)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Faoin tagairt C 283 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo I dteangacha oifigiúla an Aontais. |

---

(1)   Faoin tagairt C 283 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo I dteangacha oifigiúla an Aontais.

1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúchán

| 21.11.2006 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | C NaN/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2006

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

C NaN/1

---

Ceartúchán ar Fógra Comórtais Oscailte (EPSO/AD/45/06) chun painéal a chruthú óna n-earcófar riarthóirí teanga i réimse an aistriúcháin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge mar phríomhtheanga acu

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 104 A an 3 Bealtaine 2006
  )

(2006/C 283 A/01)

Roinn C.5

In ionad:

| ‘5. | Trialacha roghnacha |
| --- | --- |

‘5.

Is é is aidhm do na trialacha roghnacha a chur ar do chumas réimse iomlán do chur amach ar theangacha a thaispeáint. Ní dhéanfaidh an bord roghnúcháin na marcanna a bhainfear amach sna trialacha sin a chur san áireamh nuair a chinnfidh sé cé a bheidh ar an bpainéal agus an t-ord ina mbeidh siad. Is é is aidhm do na marcanna sin cabhrú leis na hInstitiúidí an leas is fearr a bhaint as an bpainéal tráth na hearcaíochta. Ní dhéanfar trialacha roghnacha a eagrú ach amháin le haghaidh iarrthóirí a bheidh tar éis dóthain marcanna a fháil sna trialacha scríofa agus sa bhéaltriail chun go gcuirfí ar an bpainéal iad.’,

Léitear:

Léitear:

| ‘5. | Trialacha roghnacha |
| --- | --- |

‘5.

Is é is aidhm do na trialacha roghnacha a chur ar do chumas réimse iomlán do chur amach ar theangacha a thaispeáint. Ní dhéanfaidh an bord roghnúcháin na marcanna a bhainfear amach sna trialacha sin a chur san áireamh nuair a chinnfidh sé cé a bheidh ar an bpainéal agus an t-ord ina mbeidh siad. Is é is aidhm do na marcanna sin cabhrú leis na hInstitiúidí an leas is fearr a bhaint as an bpainéal tráth na hearcaíochta. Ní dhéanfar trialacha roghnacha a ceartú ach amháin le haghaidh iarrthóirí a bheidh tar éis dóthain marcanna a fháil sna trialacha scríofa agus sa bhéaltriail chun go gcuirfí ar an bpainéal iad.’.

---
No. 61339.

protests 298047-K and 312789-K (New York).

#### Henry C. Schaerf Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vises the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59420, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57660.

#### W. R. Zanes and Company *v.*United States,

protest 103253-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the record made in protests *31478497-K, etc. (Abstract 57658), decided concurrently herewith, be incorporated as a part of the record in this case, and that the amount of money disallowed by reason of the method used in liquidation and handling of applicable documents, to which the plaintiff is entitled to refund, amounts to $761.53. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 55920.

protests 114407-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

#### M. A. Hoenecke *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919) the claim for free entry was sustained.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 17 th day of May, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was served via electronic mail on the parties named below:

________________________________ Vanessa C. Krasniewicz

russell.bailey@alpa.org robe rt.cohn@hoganlovells.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com patr ick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com jhill@dowlohnes.com msinick@ssd.com perkmann@dowlohnes.com

esauer@ssd.com robert.land@jetblue.com

cdonley@ssd.com efaberman@wileyrein.com

robert.wirick@aa.com kevin.m ontgomery@polaraircargo.com francis.heil@aa.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com james.kaleigh@aa.com dan.weiss@united.com gmurphy@crowell.com steve.morrissey@united.com lhalloway@crowell.com jonathan.linde@united.com rpommer@atlasair.com karine.faden@united.com

sametta.c.barnett@delta.co m thomas.bolling@united.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com scott.mcclain@delta.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com nssparks@fedex.com howard.kass@usairways.com gbleopard@fedex.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com cefelts@fedex.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil jyoung@yklaw.com william.stallings@usdoj.gov dkirstein@yklaw.com esta.rosenberg@dot.gov dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com paul.gretch@dot.gov dpdean@jamhoff.com todd.homan@dot.gov mlbenge@zsrlaw.com bob.goldner@dot.gov rdmathias@zsrlaw.com peter.irvine@dot.gov cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com reese.davidson@dot.gov dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com john.allen@faa.gov mroller@rollerbauer.com urskr@state.gov
Exhibit 24(b)


AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY


POWER OF ATTORNEY





City of Minneapolis





State of Minnesota





Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Abu M. Arif, Janet C. Langner, David K. Stewart, Scott R. Plummer and Tara W. Tilbury or any one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company’s existing or future face-amount certificate products – whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise – and periodic and other reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable federal securities laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.





Signed on this 21 st day of March, 2017





Karen M. BohnLorna P. Gleason/s/ Jean B. KeffelerJean B. KeffelerRobert McReavy








336437
1 In a proposed order attached to its Motion for Stay, the

United States suggests that we continue jury selection to an

undetermined date in September, 2003 with opening statements to

take place on an undetermined date in October, 2003.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 01-455-A

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

In its Motion for Stay (Docket #741), the United States

requests that we vacate the June 30, 2003 trial date and suspend

all pretrial proceedings in this matter pending the resolution of

its appeal of our Order of January 31, 2003.1 Standby counsel do

not oppose a continuation of the trial date as proposed by the

United States, but suggest that the Court exercise its discretion

to rule on any pending pretrial matters – “particularly those

where a ruling adverse to the government could spark another

appeal.” Mr. Moussaoui objects to the scheduling of another

trial date until the issue on appeal is resolved (Docket #751). 

Given the pending interlocutory appeal, we find that the

current trial schedule is no longer practicable, and agree with

the defendant that it would be unreasonable to commit to new

dates until the appellate process has run its course. To
2

facilitate the prompt and efficient resumption of the trial

schedule, however, the Court will continue to resolve pretrial

matters during the pendency of the appeal, including any issues

concerning the use, relevance or admissibility of classified

information pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act

(“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3. Accordingly, the United States’

Motion for Stay is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is

hereby

ORDERED that the May 27, 2003 date for the beginning of jury

selection and the June 30, 2003 trial date be and are VACATED;

and it is further

ORDERED that counsel for the United States and standby

defense counsel submit a proposed CIPA schedule by Thursday,

February 20, 2003.

The Clerk is directed to remove this case from the trial

calendar and forward copies of this Order to the defendant, pro

se; counsel for the United States; standby defense counsel; the

Court Security Officer; and the United States Marshal.

Entered this 12th day of February, 2003.

/s/

_________________________________

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Current industrial reports. MQ35W, Metalworking machinery, summary

 
SuDoc Number: C 3.158/55-2:
Item Number: 0142-A-68(online)
CGP systemNumber:000556216
 
1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |2006 |2007 |2008 |2009 |2010 |
 
January 25, 2023
(V.D. 100)

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 725806; 49921.

(Decided July 6, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawREnce, Judge:

The above-enumerated causes of action are presently before me on remand from a classification proceeding decided by the second division of this court in *Keuffel & Esser Co.*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 409, Abstract 62470, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement, pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U.S.C. section 2636(d).

The parties to these proceedings have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise consists of instruments and eases which were held by the Court in Abstract 62470 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. That the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below.

> Protest No. 235996-K/20538/53

> Item Instrument Case Total

> 10860 8.55 1.51 10.06

> 4236 4236M 8.16 8.16 1.53 1.53 9.69 9.69

> 4242 24.80 2.43 27.23

> *452Protest No. 256833-K/11916/54

> 1086C 8.55 1.51 10.06

> 3. That there was no higher foreign value.

> 4. That the instant ease may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the drawing instruments and cases covered by the remand of protests, above enumerated, and that such value is as indicated in paragraph 2 of the stipulation quoted, *supra.*

I further find and hold such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

As to all other merchandise, the remand is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 21****SUBSIDIARIES OF INCO LIMITED**     Inco Limited (the “Registrant”) has no parent. The Registrant’s subsidiaries as of December31, 2005 (excluding those subsidiaries which considered in the aggregate as a “single subsidiary”would not constitute a “significant subsidiary” as defined under Rule 1-02 of Regulation S-X of theSecurities and Exchange Commission), the jurisdiction in which each such subsidiary was organized,and the percentage of voting securities owned by the immediate parent of such subsidiary are shownin the following chart:     Inco Limited (the Registrant)    International Nickel, Inc. (Delaware)  100%I.E.L. Holdings (England)  100%Inco Europe Limited (England)  100%Goro Nickel S.A.S. (France)  71%Monticello Capital (Barbados) Limited (Barbados)  100%Inco Asia Limited (Barbados)  100%P.T. International Nickel Indonesia Tbk (Indonesia)  61%Inco TNC Limited (Japan)  67%Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company Limited (Newfoundland and Labrador)  100%     None of the subsidiaries listed above generally conducts business under a name other than theparticular name so listed.     All of the above named subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements ofthe Registrant for thse year ended December 31, 2005.
CONTACT REPORT 

Person Calling: Keith Barnett 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OAQPS/ESD/OCG 

919-541-5605 

Person Called: Curtis Lesslie 

Ash Grove Cement 

913-319-6065 

Date of Contact: July 20, 2010 

Contact Summary: Ash Grove sent the notice of complete construction for the activated carbon 

injection system at the Durkee facility on July 14, 2010. They still have a few small items to fix. 

They are now entering the 18 month shakedown period that is part of their order. 

The week of the 26th they will begin the RATA in their carbon trap system. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Confirmation: I confirm that the information above is __ correct ___ correct with the changes noted above. 

Signature: ___________________________________
Case No. 13,152.

#### SNOWDON v. LINDO.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 569.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1809.

Libel — Actionable Words — Justification.

It is a libel to print and publish these words, ■“He is a lying, slanderous rascal;” and it is no justification, that the plaintiff had stated what was not true, unless he had stated it maliciously.

Case for libel — for printing and publishing these words of the plaintiff, “He is a lying, slanderous rascal.”

The defendant pleaded, in justification, that the plaintiff had untruly published that the dinner was given to Mr. Lewis for his public services, when in truth it was given for his service to the town of Alexandria. The plea did not aver that the plaintiff maliciously, as well as falsely, published, &c.

Demurrer and joinder.

Mr. C. Lee, for plaintiff.

Words written and published are actionable, which would not be, if spoken only. Any words written and published, throwing contumely on the party, are actionable. Villers v. Monsley, 2 Wils. 403; Bell v. Stone, 1 Bos. & P. 331; Bull. N. P. 8; Esp. N. P. 260.

Mr. Swann, contrá.

The declaration is bad; the words “lying, slanderous rascal,” although printed and published, are not libellous and actionable. But if the declaration is good, the justification is good.

THE COURT

rendered judgment on the demurrer for the plaintiff.
#### Jackie BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charlie Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-7446.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Jackie Brooks, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jackie Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Brooks v. South Carolina,*No. CA-00-2494-2-17 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2000). 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.*
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

 /

On September 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court

withdraw the order filed August 11, 2005, on grounds of mootness. The court construes this as a

request for reconsideration. 

Standards For Motions To Reconsider

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 78-230(k)

requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or

different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which

provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 01/12/06 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

substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly

erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d

391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the

alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present 

“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United

States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268

(7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

These holdings “reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

Afer reviewing the record, the court finds that the August 11, 2005, order is not

moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 12, 2005,

motion to withdraw the August 11, 2005, order, construed as a request for reconsideration, is

denied.

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawernce K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

esk865.850

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/21/2023 1

Pro Se Challenge to a Slate’s Ballot Exclusion 

Sloan v. Kellner 

(Mae A. D’Agostino, N.D.N.Y. 1:14-cv-1071) 

The district court denied an injunction putting plaintiffs on a primary-election ballot on the merits and because of issue preclusion. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts; pro se party; primary election; 

interlocutory appeal. 

A pro se federal complaint filed on August 29, 2014, in the Northern District 

of New York challenged the exclusion of four of the nine plaintiffs from the 

September 9 Democratic primary election for governor, lieutenant governor, 

comptroller, and attorney general.1 Judge Mae A. D’Agostino issued an order 

on September 2 that defendants show cause by September 5 why the candidate 

plaintiffs should not be on the ballot.2

The federal complaint followed unsuccessful efforts in state court to overcome exclusion from the ballot for insufficient ballot-petition signatures.3

 Following submissions by the defendants, Judge D’Agostino denied the plaintiffs 

a preliminary injunction: (1) according to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over 

state-court proceedings; (2) the action was barred by issue preclusion; and 

(3) the complaint failed on the merits.4

On March 24, 2015, the court of appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal 

as moot.5 On November 16, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommended dismissal of the action for failure to serve the defendants.6

 Judge 

D’Agostino adopted that recommendation on December 14.7

1. Complaint, Sloan v. Kellner, No. 1:14-cv-1071 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2014), D.E. 1. 

2. Order, id. (Sept. 2, 2014), D.E. 6. 

3. Opinion, id. (Sept. 8, 2014), D.E. 10. 

4. Id.; see D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923); see also Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 3d ed. 2014). 

5. Order, Sloan v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 14-3342 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2015), D.E. 

128. 

6. Order, Sloan, No. 1:14-cv-1071 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015), D.E. 21. 

7. Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2015), D.E. 26.
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

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 30, 2006, defendants filed a second request for extension of time to

respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants were previously granted until April 7, 2006

in which to respond. Defendants seek a second extension of time to April 24, 2006 in which to

respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. However, discovery closes in this action on April 21,

2006. (See December 23, 2005 Scheduling Order.) Accordingly, defendants will be granted an

extension of time up to and including April 17, 2006. No further extensions of time will be

granted.

On March 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for clarification of this court’s March

16, 2006 order disregarding plaintif’s request for production of documents. However, by order

filed March 27, 2006, plaintiff’s request for subpoena was addressed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ March 30, 2006 request for a second

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/07/06 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

extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery is partially granted; defendants shall respond

to plaintiff’s discovery no later than April 17, 2006.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

/001

eich1108.eot2

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2