alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IRC Handout Draft December 2020

PROPOSED CHANGES TO USSGL ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 2021

Account Title: Financing Sources Transferred In From Custodial Statement Collections

Account Number: 599700

Normal Balance: Credit

Definition: The amount of financing sources transferred into a special or trust non-revolving 

fund receipt account (respectively associated with either a special or trust nonrevolving expenditure account) or a general or revolving fund expenditure account

(as offsetting collections) from collections previously recorded on the Statement of 

Custodial Activity by a custodial collecting entity.

Justification: To acknowledge and provide clarification that this USSGL account may be used 

by a variety of Treasury Account Symbols when transferring custodial activity.
Before the First Division,

April 2, 1948

No. 52244.

protest 135258-K (New York).

#### Display Eximport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial there was received in evidence a photograph (exhibit 1) showing a set of five animals of various sizes. The import manager of the plaintiff corporation testified that these animals were used for display purposes and not as toys; that exhibit 1 was representative of the importation; and that the figures were made entirely of wood and painted. The court stated that in customs litigation the importer, in protesting the classification of the collector, assumes the burden of establishing not only that the classification was erroneous but also that his own contention is correct. *(United States*v. *Gardel Industries,*33 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 325.) The plaintiff herein having failed to sustain its burden of proof, the protest was overruled.
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

TONY CAMPBELL, No. CIV-S-04-1292 MCE/DAD P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

J. BAILEY, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 September 14, 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.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01292-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/02/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 14,

2005 are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ May 6, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted;

and

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice as to all

defendants for failure to exhaust available administrative

remedies prior to bringing the action.

DATED: November 2, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01292-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/02/05 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

DANIEL BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Acting Federal Defender

ANN C. McCLINTOCK, Bar #141313

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

JEFFREY BIGGS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY BIGGS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV S-04-1169 FCD GGH P

ORDER

On October 4, 2006, Petitioner filed an unopposed request for an extension of time to file a

response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

The Petitioner shall file and serve any Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause on or

before November 3, 2006.

Dated: 10/16/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

United States Magistrate Judge

bigg1169.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01169-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 1
September 30, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: N2O Data from EPA Heavy-Duty Testing

FROM: Angela Cullen, Engineer

Antonio Fernandez, Engineer

Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum contains the results of both engine and vehicle FTP testing. The vehicle FTP 

testing values include city cycle and the highway fuel economy cycle. The vehicle emission 

levels reflect the composite result with the city cycle accounting for 55% and the highway

accounting for 45% of the result. Vehicle testing was performed at EPA’s National Vehicles and 

Fuels Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). N2O measurements on vehicles were made with an

INNOVA 1314 Photoacoustic Multi-gas Monitor and confirmed with a Fourier Transform 

Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR). The engine testing was performed at Southwest Research Institute 

for the Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES), an industry and government 

collaboration. In the ACES program, N2O measurements on engines over the FTP engine test 

cycle were made using a FTIR. 

All of the engines tested met the cap of 0.05 g/bhp-hr. The average of the engines was .025 g/mi. 

The engines included 7 tests on 4 diesel engines from Cummins, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel and 

Volvo.

All of the vehicles tested met the cap of 0.05 g/mile. The average of the vehicles was .026 g/mi. 

The vehicles included 10 gasoline tests and 2 diesel tests.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine FTP N2O Emission Levels 

0.0000

0.0100

0.0200

0.0300

0.0400

0.0500

0.0600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tests

g/bhp-hr

Heavy-Duty Vehicle N2O Levels Gasoline and Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles

Composite of FTP City and HWFE tests (55/45) Emissions

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Test

grams/mile
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 22.1

                                SUBSIDIARY LIST

1.    AEG Finance Corp, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Maytag Aircraft
      Corporation.

2.    Mercury Acceptance Corporation, Inc., a California corporation, wholly
      owned by Mercury Air Group, Inc.

3.    Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a Colorado corporation, wholly owned by
      Mercury Air Group, Inc.

4.    Mercury Air Cargo, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Mercury
      Air Group, Inc.

5.    Hermes Aviation, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Mercury
      Air Cargo, Inc.

6.    Pegasus de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, owned 99% by
      Mercury Air Cargo, Inc. and 1% by Hermes Aviation, Inc.

7.    Excel Cargo, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Mercury Air
      Group, Inc.

8.    Vulcan Aviation, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by Mercury
      Air Cargo, Inc.

9.    Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a Cayman corporation, wholly owned by Maytag
      Aircraft Corporation.

10.   Mercury Air Centers, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by
      Mercury Air Group, Inc.

11.   Jupiter Airline Automation Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, wholly
      owned by Mercury Air Group, Inc.

12.   RPA Airline Automation Services, Division El Salvador S.A. de C.V., an El
      Salvadorian corporation, 99% owned by RPA Airline Automation Service, Inc.
      and 1% owned by Mercury Air Group, Inc.

13.   Hermes Aviation Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation, wholly owned by
      Excel Cargo, Inc.

14.   Hermes de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, owned 99% by Mercury
      Air Cargo, Inc. and 1% by Hermes Aviation, Inc.

15.   MercFuel, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, wholly owned by Mercury Air
      Group, Inc.

16.   Mercury Air Center-Addison, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air Centers,
      Inc.

17.   Mercury Air Center-Burbank, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air Centers,
      Inc.

18.   Mercury Air Center-Bakersfield, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air Centers,
      Inc.

19.   Mercury Air Center-Corpus Christi Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air
      Centers, Inc.

20.   Mercury Air Center-Fresno, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air Centers,
      Inc.

21.   Mercury Air Center-Ontario, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air Centers,
      Inc.

22.   Mercury Air Center-Los Angeles, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air
      Centers, Inc.

23.   Mercury Air Center-Santa Barbara, Inc., wholly owned by Mercury Air
      Centers, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

y0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

142799 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142799 

 COA: 295619 

Wayne CC: 09-018971-FC 

JOSEPH HESTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case No. 9,035.

#### MANN v. SACKS.

[Bee, 202.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

April 21, 1804.

DA?dAGES-TowrS -NETJTRAL VESSEL - FALSE PAPERS.

False papers divest a neutral vessel of all right to redress, under treaties, or the law of nations.

This is a suit for damages. The defendant •on the 25th of December last, captured on the high seas, and carried into the island of Cuba, the schooner Ann, with a cargo of slaves. [Henry Maurice] Sacks at that time command■ed a French national brig called La Sophie, and was duly commissioned to cruize. When he boarded and took possession of the Ann, she was under the command of one Ogden, who called himself a Danish subject, and was reputed owner, to cover the property which, in fact belonged to [Spencer] Mann and Foltz of this town. The vessel was sailing under a Danish flag; her register, and all the papers on board were Danish; and when Sacks boarded, Ogden asked him if the French were at war with the Danes.

BY THE COURT.

It was contended for the actors, that this court, as an instance court, may take cognizance of all maritime causes, and cases have been cited to this effect. In all suits hitherto sustained by me, one or other of the following circumstances existed: 1st. The illegal equipment in our ports of the capturing vessel, contrary to act of congress of 5th June, 1794. 2d. Disregard of sea-letters produced, as required by. the treaty with France; as in Delcol and Arnold. 3d. Capture within a marine league of this coast.

It is true that the question of prize or no prize, has sometimes been implicated with matters that concerned the sovereignty of the United States, or a violation of her treaties.

According to our present treaty with France, certain papers therein specified shall suffice to fix the national character of the vessels of both powers. If such are produced without due effect, and if the captured vessel be brought infrü, praesidia of her own courts, those courts will, without hesitation, interfere. But if American citizens will, for the sake of gain, divest themselves of their *neutral*character, and send their vessels to sea under foreign or masked papers, they do so at their peril. They forfeit all right to the protection of this court and of the treaties intended for the benefit of those who bring themselves fairly within their provisions. It appears clearly from a variety of evidence, including two policies of insurance, that this vessel had no claim to be considered as American. If the French vessel of war had brought her into this port, the treaty would have justified her in carrying her out again, as a Danish bottom; nor can the captain be now made answerable personally. He has pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court: he has a right to do so; and the libel must be dismissed with costs.
Exhibit 32.2





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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Carter J Ward, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.
C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Registrant.





Date:
February 12, 2010

/s/ Carter J. WardCarter J. WardChief Financial Officer ofElite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer




This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32(a), Form 10-K/A

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Year Ended 2009

The undersigned
certify that the registrants Form 10-K/A report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Philip Bixby                                          
|R. Philip Bixby                                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board
|                                                             
|/s/ Tracy W. Knapp                                           
|Tracy W. Knapp                                               
|Senior Vice President, Finance                               
|Date: February 24, 2011
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
RICARDO JAVIER ARELLANO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00060

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : May 31, 2022 Decided: June 15, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ricardo Javier Arellano, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6187 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Javier Arellano appeals t he district court’s order denying h is motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arellano’s motion.
See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review) , cert.
denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. United
States v. Arellano , No. 3:09

- cr - 00060

- MR

- 1 (W.D. N.C. Feb. 2, 2022 ). We deny as moot Arellano’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6187 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Order entered January 31 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 01355

- CV

MORRISON FAMILY TRUS T, KEN MORRISON, TRU STEE, INDIVIDUALLY, STONECOAT OF TEXAS, LLC, STON ECOAT, LP AND STONEC OAT GP, LLC, Appellant s

V.

PHILIPPE MERGAUX, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 00790



### O RDER

We REINSTATE the appeal.
After this appeal was submitted, appelle e filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code. We abated the appeal on February 22, 2018 pending further
notification from the parties.
On January 21, 2020, the Court received appellants’ and the chapter 7 Trustee for
appellee ’s agreed motion to set aside, remand, and instruct the district court to enter an agreed
amended final judgment. Attached to the motion is the agreed order lifting the automatic stay
from the bankruptcy court signed November 5, 2019.

A n opinio n will issue in due course./s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

NO. CIV. S-04-1081 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2004 and an

Order Requiring a Joint Status Report was filed concurrently. On

July 9, 2004, plaintiff filed a return of service executed as to

defendants Raghbir Singh, Kamaljeet Kaur Dhillon, Baljeet Dhillon

and Avtar S. Sahota. On July 14, 2004, defendant Liberty Mutual

filed an answer, cross-claim and counterclaim. On August 2,

2004, counter defendant, General Security, filed its answer to

the counterclaim. 

On September 30, 2004, plaintiff requested an order

from the court allowing service of the summons and complaint by

Case 2:04-cv-01081-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

publication on defendants Parvinder Singh Suner and Paul Sunar

which was granted on October 4, 2004. On November 22, 2004,

proof of publication service was filed as to those defendants. 

On February 3, 2005, plaintiff requested that default be

entered against all defendants except Liberty Mutual and on

February 9, 2005 defaults were entered against those defendants

in accordance with F.R.C.P 55(a). 

As of September 14, 2005, no further action has been taken

by plaintiff on final resolution as to the defendants in which

default was entered and no action has been taken by plaintiff and

defendant Liberty Mutual as to the scheduling of this action. 

Accordingly, the court makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiffs’ counsel and defendant’s counsel, Jessica L.

 Meeks, are ordered to show cause why they should not be

sanctioned in the amount of $150.00 each for failure to 

file a joint status report in compliance with the 

court’s order of June 7, 2004; 

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel is also ordered to show cause why

the case should not be dismissed against those

defendants in which default was entered for failure to

prosecute; 

3. Counsel shall file a response to the order to show

cause on or before September 30, 2005;

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01081-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. A status conference is set for Friday, October 7, 2005

at 10:00 a.m. A joint status report between plaintiff

and defendant Liberty Mutual shall be filed no later

than September 30, 2005. A hearing on this order to

show cause shall follow the status set on 

October 7, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01081-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 3
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 for Dismissal and Order

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JOSEPH O. EGAN

Lead Supervising Deputy Attorney General

BRUCE J. BRAVERMAN, State Bar No. 052244

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5380

Fax: (916) 324-5567

Email: Bruce.Braverman@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for SANDRA SHEWRY, Director of the

Department of Health Services, State of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES NETWORK,

BRIAN COOK, by his legal guardian, DOUG

COOK, MOUNTAIN VIEW CHILD CARE, INC.,

and MOUNTAIN SHADOWS SUPPORT GROUP, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANDRA SHEWRY, Director of the Department of

Health Services, State of California,

Defendant.

CIV S-04-1501 DFL DAD

STIPULATION FOR

DISMISSAL AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, through their

designated counsel, that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-01501-DFL -PAN Document 18 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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 for Dismissal and Order

2

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), each party to bear its own costs and

attorney fees.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN TAUGHER, P.C.

Dated: 

BRIAN TAUGHER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Developmental

Services Network, Brian Cook, Mountain

View Child Care, Ind., and Mountain Shadows

Support Group

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

Dated: 

BRUCE J. BRAVERMAN

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for SANDRA SHEWRY, Director

of the Department of Health Services, State of

California 

ORDER

Having been stipulated and requested by the parties hereto,

IT IS ORDERED that the above-entitled is dismissed without prejudice, each party to

bear its own costs and attorney fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/3/0/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01501-DFL -PAN Document 18 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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 for Dismissal and Order

3

04cv1501.o.330.wpd

SA2004103372

Case 2:04-cv-01501-DFL -PAN Document 18 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3
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 

Richard Dennis Gamache,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0859 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Brett Williams, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJuly 11, 2005, plaintiff inquired regarding service of

defendants, stating he may seek default.

Defendants B. Williams, Galloway, Milliman, Todd, D.

Williams and Smith were served and timely answered June 6, 2005. 

Defendants shall serve their answer on plaintiff within 10 days

and file a proof of service showing they have done so.

So ordered.

Dated: July 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 25 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 1