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

David Wesley Birrell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1576 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Joseph Bick, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action in forma pauperis and without counsel. January 20, 2005,

the assigned district judge declined to dismiss the Doe

defendants and gave plaintiff time to file an amended complaint. 

March 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a third-amended complaint.

The complaint states cognizable claims for relief against

all named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b). 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/21/05 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

1. Service of process is appropriate upon defendants Joseph

Bick, Nadim K. Khoury, R. L. Andreasen, C. Hollis, N. Grannis and

Dennis Kearney.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff six USM-285

forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the

March 14, 2005, pleading.

3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff

shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and

submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM-285

forms and seven copies of the March 14, 2005, pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve defendants Joseph Bick,

Nadim K. Khoury, R. L. Andreasen, C. Hollis, N. Grannis and

Dennis Kearney pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs.

Dated: June 21, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/21/05 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Wesley Birrell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1576 DFL PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Joseph Bick, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 6 completed forms USM-285 

 7 copies of the March 14, 2005 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 11 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3
##### 



SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF CAPITALSOURCE INC.
  FIRST:
 SECOND:
 THIRD:
 FOURTH:
 ARTICLE I  Name
  ARTICLE II  Registered Office and Agent
  ARTICLE III  Purpose
  ARTICLE IV  Capital Stock
 five one billion, two 550,000,000).
Five 1,250,000,000). One billion, two 500,000,000 1,200,000,000
  Common Stock .




---



##### 



Dividends .
 Voting Rights .
 Liquidation Rights .
 Preferred Stock .
 ARTICLE V  Board Of Directors




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI  Limitation Of Liability
  ARTICLE VII  Bylaws
 2 2
 ARTICLE VIII  Restriction on Transfer and Ownership of Shares
 Definitions .
 Articles .
 Beneficial Ownership .
 Business Day .
 Charitable Beneficiary .
 Charitable Trust .




---



##### 



Charitable Trustee .
 Code .
 Designated Investment Entity .
 Designated Investment Entity Limit .
 Excepted Holder .
 Excepted Holder Limit .
 Initial Date .
 Market Price .




---



##### 



NYSE .
 Ownership Limit .
 Person .
 Prohibited Owner .
 Qualified Investment Manager .
 REIT .
 Restriction Termination Date .
 Shares .
 Transfer .




---



##### 



Shares .
 Ownership Limitations .
 Basic Restrictions .
    ab initio,
 Transfer in Trust .
  ab initio
 Remedies for Breach . provided however ab initio
 Notice of Restricted Transfer .




---



##### 



Owners Required To Provide Information .
   Remedies Not Limited .
 Ambiguity .
 Exemptions from the Ownership Limit .




---



##### 



provided, however,
   Increase in Ownership Limit or Designated Investment Entity Limit .
   Legend .




---



##### 



ab initio.
  Transfer of Shares in Trust
 Ownership in Trust .
 Status of Shares Held by the Charitable Trustee .
 Dividend and Voting Rights .




---



##### 



Rights Upon Liquidation .
 Sale of Shares by Charitable Trustee . e.g.
 Purchase Right in Shares Transferred to the Charitable Trustee .
 Designation of Charitable Beneficiaries .
 NYSE Transactions .
 Enforcement .




---



##### 



Non-Waiver .
 ARTICLE IX  Amendment
 provided, however, 2 3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 27th 1st April May 2006. 2008.
 /s/ Steven A. MuselesSteven A. MuselesChief Legal Officer and Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65380-65381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26432]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9745-2]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), notice is hereby

[[Page 65381]]

given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning the Gulf State 
Utilities--North Ryan Street Superfund Site, Lake Charles, Calcasieu 
Parish, Louisiana.
    The settlement requires the two (2) settling parties to pay a total 
of $275,000.00 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances 
Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to 
Section 107 of CERCLA.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Stephen Capuyan at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-2163. Comments 
should reference the Gulf State Utilities--North Ryan Street Superfund 
Site, Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana and EPA Docket Number 
06-10-12, and should be addressed to Stephen Capuyan at the address 
listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Quinones, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8035.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 2012-26432 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2016

v No. 328477 Wayne Circuit Court DEREK JAMES SMITH, LC No. 15-001476-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: W ILDER , P.J., and C AVANAGH and S ERVITTO , JJ.

S ERVITTO , J. ( concurring ).

I concur with the majority’s conclusions regarding defendant’s allegations of error on appeal. I write separately, however, to express my extreme sho ck and disbelief that the trial judge in this matter finds it appropriate to adhere to a person al policy of “rewarding” defendants who “plead guilty in advance of trial.” While the trial judge stated that her practice was not “to punish people for exercising thei r right to go to trial” the ir refutable and impermissible end result is that her policy and pract ice does exactly that.

The right to trial by jury in a criminal felony prosecution is among the most fundamental rights provided by our judicial system. See, People v Allen , 466 Mich 86, 90; 643 NW2d 227 (2002). No price may be exacted, nor a penalty be imposed for exercising a fundamental right. People v Snow , 26 Mich App 510, 515; 182 NW2d 820 (1970). To deny concessio ns to those who exercise constitutional rights and grant them to those who waive their rights is to exact a price on the exercise of guaranteed rights. This no state may properly do. See United States v
Jackson , 390 US 570; 88 S Ct 1209; 20 L Ed 2d 138 (1968). When senten cing a defendant, a
trial court may not consider factors that violate a defendant's constitutional rig hts. People v
Godbold , 230 Mich App 508, 512; 585 NW2d 13 (1998)(emphasis added).

Moreover, “it is a violation of due process to punish a person for asserting a protected statutory or constitutional right.” People v Jones , 252 Mich App 1, 7; 650 NW2d 717 (2002), quoting People v Ryan , 451 Mich 30, 35; 545 NW2d 612 (1996). And, “to punish a pers on because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most
basic sort . . . .” Id. quoting Ryan , 451 Mich at 36.

It is not a new tenet of law that a judge may not consider the absence of a plea when sentencing a defendant. See, e.g., People v Snow , 26 Mich App 510, 516; 182 NW2d 820 (1970). A defendant may also not be penalized at sentencing fo r refusing to admit guilt, People-2- v Conley , 270 Mich App 301, 315; 715 NW2d 377 (2006), or for exercising his or her right to a jury trial. People v Mosko , 190 Mich App 204, 211; 475 NW2d 866 (1991). The trial judge’ s blatant disregard of years of e stablished case law and her indi fference to defendant’s constitutional rights, signals a neglect of her duty to sentenc e a defendant in conformity with the law. See, People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82, 91; 711 NW2d 44 (2006). It is unsettling to me to know that such a policy that effectively chills the exercise of the fundamental right to a jury trial would be exercised by a trial court in this day.

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 02 8 . J ABBAR MUHAMMAD ALI W I LLI AMS v . THE STATE.

Ja bba r M u h am m ad Al i W i l l i am s p l ead ed g u i l ty t o posse ssion of m a r ij ua na w ith

i n t en t t o d i s t ri b ut e. Fo u r d ay s l at er, h e l at er fi l ed a m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw h i s g u i l t y

p l ea, wh i ch t h e tri al co u rt d en i ed . W i l l i am s t h en fi l ed a “ Req u es t fo r Cert i fi cat e o f

Pro b ab l e Cau s e” i n t h e Su prem e Co u rt

. Th e Su prem e Co urt d o ck et ed t h e fi l i n g as an

ap p li cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary ap p eal o f t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ord er den y i n g W i l l i am s ’ s

m o ti o n t o wi t h d raw h i s g u i l t y p l ea an d t ran sferred t h e cas e h ere.

An o rd er d en y i n g a m o t i on t o wi t h d raw a g u i l t y pl ea m ay be ap p eal ed d i rect l y

.

See S mi t h v. S ta te

, 2 8 3 Ga. 3 76 (6 5 9 SE2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 00 8 ). W e wi ll g ran t a t i m el y fi l ed

ap p li cat io n fo r d i scret i o n ary ap p eal i f th e l o we r c o u r t ’ s o rd er i s s u b ject t o d i rect

ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd in g l y

, th i s ap p li cat i o n i s h ereb y GRANTED,

an d W il l i am s s h al l hav e t en d ay s fro m th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

i n t h e t ri al co u rt

. If h e h as al read y fi l ed a ti m el y no t i ce o f ap peal i n t h e t ri al co u rt

, h e

n eed n o t fi l e a seco n d no t i ce. Th e cl erk o f t h e s up eri o r co u rt is d i rect ed t o i n cl u d e a

co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e ap p eal reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h is Co u rt

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 22, 2018

08/22/2018
Before the First Division,

April 22, 1958

No. 61847.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 264224-K (New York).

*530Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked *“A”*consist of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained as to said items. Following *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
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

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFFE, No. CIV S-04-1695 WBS GGH PS

Plaintiff, 

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 30, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of counsel. Both parties

now appearing by counsel, the referral to the magistrate judge is withdrawn. However, the

magistrate judge shall continue to perform all duties described in Local Rule 72-302(c)(1)-(20).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:076

O'Keeffe1695.reassign.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 73 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 1
**Global Golf Holdings, Inc.**
 
 **Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
 
 I, Ford Sinclair, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Golf Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The registrants certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrants certifying officer has disclosed, based on his most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrants other certifying officers have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: October 20, 2004/s/ Ford SinclairFord SinclairCFO
#                 Book/Printed Material                Turkey : a country study
No. 57274.

protests 615155-G, etc. (New York).

#### M. Modlin & Son *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that .the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim, for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in. C. D. 1480, *supra.*
|  
Exhibit 21, Form 10-K

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

 

 

 

 

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

 

 

Kansas City Life Insurance Company's significant insurance subsidiaries are:

 

1.  Sunset Life Insurance Company of America, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington and redomesticated to the State of Missouri.

 

2.  Old American Insurance Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri.

 

The Company's non-insurance subsidiaries are not significant individually or in the aggregate.

  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 438 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded natural gas exports. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded 

natural gas exports. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Gas Export 

5 Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATURAL GAS EXPORTS. 

7 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that expanding nat8 ural gas exports will lead to increased investment and de9 velopment of domestic supplies of natural gas that will 

10 contribute to job growth and economic development. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 438 IS

1 (b) NATURAL GAS EXPORTS.—Section 3(c) of the 

2 Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended— 

3 (1) by inserting ‘‘or any other nation not ex4 cluded by this section’’ after ‘‘trade in natural gas’’; 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘(c) For purposes’’ and insert6 ing the following: 

7 ‘‘(c) EXPEDITED APPLICATION AND APPROVAL

8 PROCESS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) EXCLUSIONS.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any nation subject to 

13 sanctions or trade restrictions imposed by the 

14 United States is excluded from expedited ap15 proval under paragraph (1). 

16 ‘‘(B) DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT OR

17 CONGRESS.—The President or Congress may 

18 designate nations that may be excluded from 

19 expedited approval under paragraph (1) for rea20 sons of national security. 

21 ‘‘(3) ORDER NOT REQUIRED.—No order is re22 quired under subsection (a) to authorize the export 

23 or import of any natural gas to or from Canada or 

24 Mexico.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Amir
Rosenthal, Chief Financial 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:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

/s/ Amir Rosenthal
------------------
Amir Rosenthal
Chief Financial Officer
March 29, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be
retained by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       94
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL BURTON : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-4872

:

GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF 

PHILADELPHIA, THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of October 2024, upon considering petitioner’s motion for 

relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) & 60(b)(6) (DI 23), 

respondents’ opposition (DI 32), petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (DI 30), 

petitioner’s motion for discovery (DI 31), petitioner’s motion to stay (DI 33), and for reasons in 

the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment (DI 23) is DENIED and 

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to his right to file with the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an application to file a second or successive habeas 

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (DI 30) is DENIED as moot.

3. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (DI 31) is DENIED as moot.

4. Petitioner’s motion to stay (DI 33) is DENIED as moot.

5. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) 

because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

6. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

 

 MURPHY, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04872-JFM Document 35 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 1