alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 16, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14776

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

BIA No. A79-425-420

KUJTIM KOLAMI, 

Petitioner, 

versus 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(May 16, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kujtim Kolami, a citizen and native of Albania, petitions this Court for
 Kolami also claimed Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief before the IJ, but did

1

not appeal the denial of CAT relief to the BIA and, accordingly, does not raise the issue now.

2

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and

affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying asylum and withholding

of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), INA § 208, 8

U.S.C. § 1231. 

1

The IJ found that Kolami left Albania for economic reasons, not because of

persecution. The BIA further concluded that Kolami was unable to show a nexus

between the collective negative conduct he alleged and any protected ground. In

his appellate brief, Kolami argues only that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that the

conduct was not sufficiently severe as to constitute persecution. Thus, Kolami has

abandoned the issue of whether he left Albania due to persecution on account of

his political opinion, as opposed to having left for economic reasons. See

Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Because

Kolami has abandoned this issue on appeal, we do not review it, and accordingly

must deny his petition.

PETITION DENIED.
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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Jones v. Grocery Outlet, et al.

 CIV. S-04-1827 DFL CMK

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 W ILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JOHN H. SEARS, SBN 37687

DAVID P. LANFERMAN, SBN 71593

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, 17 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 434-9100

Facsimile: (415) 434-3947

Attorneys for Defendants 

R&M ORTIZ, INC., dba GROCERY OUTLET,

JAMES P. READ and STEVEN M. READ and READ INVESTMENTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GYPSIE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

R&M ORTIZ, INC., dba GROCERY

OUTLET; JAMES P. READ, STEVEN M.

READ dba READ INVESTMENTS,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S. 04-1827 DFL CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-01827-DFL -CMK Document 13 Filed 10/18/05 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

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Jones v. Grocery Outlet, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S-04-1827 DFL CMK

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, Gypsie Jones,

and defendants, R&M Ortiz, Inc. Dba Grocery Outlet and James P. Read and Steven M.

Read dba READ INVESTMENTS, the parties hereby request that all parties be dismissed

with prejudice from the above-entitled action.

Dated: October 13, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

/s/ Scottlynn J Hubbard, IV

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: October 3, 2005 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON

Signature On File

JOHN H. SEARS, ESQ.

DAVID P. LANFERMAN, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S04-1827 DFL CMK, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 17, 2005 /s/ David F. Levi 

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01827-DFL -CMK Document 13 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIEDPUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

We have issued our report dated August 20,2002, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule includedin the Annual Report of K-tel International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended June 30, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference ofsaid report in the Registration Statements of K-tel International, Inc. onForms S-8 (File No. 33-18723 effective November 25, 1987, File No. 333-28815effective June 5, 1997, File No. 333-65755 effective October 6, 1998, File No.333-74471 effective March 12, 1999, File No. 333-31272 effective February 28,2000, and File No. 333-39022 effective June 9, 2000).

 

 
|                   |   | /S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|
|                   |   |                   |   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |   |                   |   |
| September 28, 2002     |   |                   |   |

 

 

----
Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM   Document 26    Filed 06/14/06   Page 6 of 6
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA) Construction and Operations Plan (COP) 

Renewable Energy Lease OCS-A-0478

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) (formerly 

Minerals Management Service) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for CWA’s COP to 

construct, operate, and eventually decommission an offshore wind power facility on Horseshoe Shoal on 

the OCS in Nantucket Sound, offshore Massachusetts. The Proposed Action calls for 130, 3.6 megawatt 

wind turbine generators, each with a maximum blade height of 440 feet, to be arranged in a grid pattern 

on the OCS in Nantucket Sound, just offshore Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. The 

COP can be found at: http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm. 

BOEMRE published the Cape Wind Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on January 16, 2009, 

and an EA on April 28, 2010. The Proposed Action, including project location and extent, remain the 

same as described for the Proposed Action in the FEIS. This EA will be used for the purpose of 

determining whether a supplemental EIS is necessary before BOEMRE decides to approve, approve 

with modification, or deny CWA’s COP. To that end, BOEMRE is soliciting public comment to 

determine whether there are any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed Cape Wind Project or its impacts as described in the FEIS or the 

April 28, 2010, EA. 

The following issues have been identified by BOEMRE for consideration in this EA: 

 Consideration of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Biological opinion, which 

was the result of re-initiated consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(12/30/10); 

 Consideration of civilian air space conflicts, including potential noise and economic impacts 

from flight diversions; 

 Consideration of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act (CAA) permit; 

 Consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Determination of No Hazard to 

Air Navigation (5/17/2010); 

 Consideration of impacts including air emissions from increased vessel trips due to G&G 

surveys; and 

 Consideration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Permits, issued pursuant to Section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (01/05/11). 

COMMENTS 

This notice provides an opportunity for public input prior to completion of the EA and a decision by the 

responsible official. Public input may inform the decisionmaking process by suggesting new issues or 

contributing information with regard to potential environmental effects in one of the following ways: 

1. Electronically: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter BOEM2011-0007, then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and 

related materials available for this document.
### - ''''[HF'lT tv:

. ,.1.,', . ,_I'. v( 

## -_:;~?ORrATlO~

....; I 

# OPUlATIONS 

# C!Congre~!of tfJe

# 'm1n{teb 

# ~tatts1] JUL2S P 2: 3b .alilJinlron. i1l!t 2G510 July 16,20]3 Brooke Chapman Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington DC 20590 - Dear Assoeiate Director Chapman:

." 

# --

# ._~- 

# _ ...••..

## -.-_. ,-- 

## ._- 

## ---------- \tis withgrelitenthu$iasril that we offer our support to-the Small Community Air Service DevelOpiileiit - (SCASD) grant application ofthe Duluth AirportAuthority andVisit Duluth. Duluth's SCASD application has broad support in the local community evident by the public and private money committed as a local mateh. Duluth is a model candidate for the SCASD programdue to its higher fares and limited air serviee connectivity. A recent leakage study revealed that 49% ofpotential passengers within a 30 mile radius of Duluth choose to drive 2 \f, hours to Minneapolis duc inpart to higher fares and limited eonnectivity. The same study also shows that 70% ofDuluth's air passcngcrs are outbound. These trends are reversible with the assistance ofthc SCASD program. The Duluth Airport Authority, inpartnership with Visit Duluth, has developed aplan targeting travel from Chicago to Duluth in an effort to attract leisuretravelers to the Duluth area. This eftart will combat the 70% outbound passenger numbers directly bringing the percentage closer to an industry acceptable 50%. Increased passengers to Duluth will assist the airport inworking with each of its -airlinepartners to keep fares comp<:titiveand provide additional frequencies. The economic,impact ofthis.in"estmentwill • also be felt in many businesses ofthe region as travelers stay in area hotels, eat in local restauTahis, and shop in many oftbe local small businesses that call Duluth home. - The airport-and the community are on the cusp ofself-sustaining growth with the infusion of capital the SCASJ2yrogram can ~rovide. We think you will agree that Duluth's application makes a strong case.
.--. Thankyou foryourconsideranonoftheirappllcafioo.- -- -- - -- .. -------- --'- .------------

United States Senator United States Senator Richard M. Nolan Member ofCongress

~- ..• 'i(~r~ .•

__ ••• 

### lIlI!lli•• 

# ,.:$'*'e:!~~~

. ..;,.~~,~: ..

~ ~ ;.. _',r;.
April 16, 2015 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary Foxx, 

26 Union rr~c r South, P.O. Box 308, Concord, NC 28026- on cordnc. · 

As you know II million Americans rely on a healthy, competitive airline industry for their 

live lihood - many of them in North Carolina - the birthplace of aviation. That is why I was 

alarmed to hear recently that the governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were 

providing unfair subsidies to their state-owned airlines, jeopardizing the American airline 

industry and jobs here at home. 

Over the course of the last ten years, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline have 

received over $40 billion in unfair subsidies, including interest free loans with no repayment 

schedule from their governments. Qatar and the UAE have created an imbalance in the 

marketplace that tips heavily in their favor. 

While the Gulf airlines have been able to add numerous new routes and destinations, the big three 

American carriers- American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines- have been forced 

to work uphill in order to add routes of their own. 

As Mayor of Concord, which is home to a regional airport, I am respectfully asking that you 

initiate the process of opening consultations with Qatar and the UAE. The practices of the Gulf 

nations have not only undermined competition and distorted the playing field; they are also a 

violation of Open Skies policy. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

ko/ 

J. Scott Padgett 

Mayor 

JSP/jhq 

PC: Senator Richard Burr 

Senator Thom Tillis 

Representative Richard Hudson 

Representative Robert Pittenger 

Representative Patrick McHenry 

Representative Alma Adams 

Mayor's Office 

s 10-150422-006 Phone (704) 920-5215 • Fax (704) 920-6909
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

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs. 

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 24, 2005, the court dismissed the amended complaint with leave

to file a second amended complaint. Pending before the court is the second amended complaint

filed March 2, 2005.

The second amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff

has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Carey, Brown, Johns,

Scavetta, Motschenbacher, Stewart, Paradis and Edwards.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 8 USM-285 forms, one summons,

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 05/19/05 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

2

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed March 2, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Nine copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed March 2,

2005.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 5/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

hard1897.srv

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 05/19/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 8 completed USM-285 forms

 9 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 14 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Zuosheng Yu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1)
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
      May 10, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Zuosheng YuZuosheng
      Yu
                Chief
      Executive Officer
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1158 MCE KJM P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file a third amended complaint as

provided by the court's order of December 29, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 3 and February 9, 2006 requests for an extension of time

are granted; and

2. The third amended complaint filed on February 9, 2006 is deemed timely filed. 

DATED: February 21, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

king1158.36

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 20 Filed 02/22/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1694 LKK PAN P

vs.

SHERIFF GARY R. STANTON, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendant has requested an extension of time to file and serve a motion for

summary judgment. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s April 13, 2006, request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Defendant is granted 30 days from the date the district judge rules on

defendants’ motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings, whichever is later, to file

and serve a motion for summary judgment. 

DATED: April 19, 2006.

/bb/004

mars1694.36

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 89 Filed 04/20/06 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

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

 /

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “request for production of documents.” 

Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither

discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until

such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed

with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 7, 2006 request

for production of documents will be placed in the court file and disregarded. Plaintiff is

cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 58 Filed 03/16/06 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

court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. 

DATED: March 16, 2006.

/mp

eich1108.411

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 58 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,095
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                       624
<INVENTORY>                                     29,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,998
<PP&E>                                         112,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,104
<BONDS>                                         38,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,909
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,486)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,772
<SALES>                                        108,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,828
<CGS>                                           72,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,803
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,877
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</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

ALONZO McKINNEY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1678 LKK GGH P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 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 July 6, 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. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 32 Filed 08/05/05 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 6, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. The petition is dismissed for lack of exhaustion.

DATED: August 5, 2005. 

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mcki1678.805

Case 2:04-cv-01678-LKK -GGH Document 32 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2