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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4257 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from allowing IRS personnel to 

use a personal device, including a mobile device, to access, process, 

transmit, or store taxpayer information. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. DAINES, and 

Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from allowing IRS 

personnel to use a personal device, including a mobile 

device, to access, process, transmit, or store taxpayer 

information. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring No Devices 

5 Bear Your Own Data Act’’ or the ‘‘END BYOD Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4257 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING IRS PERSONNEL FROM USING PER2 SONAL DEVICES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not establish, 

4 permit, or administer any program (regardless of whether 

5 such program was established before, on, or after the date 

6 of enactment of this Act) which allows any individual de7 scribed in subsection (b) to use a personal device to access, 

8 process, transmit, or store any taxpayer information which 

9 is subject to restrictions on disclosure pursuant to section 

10 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

11 (b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—An individual is de12 scribed in this subsection if such individual is— 

13 (1) an employee of the Internal Revenue Serv14 ice; 

15 (2) an employee of an entity that is a party to 

16 a contract with the Internal Revenue Service whose 

17 job duties involve working under such contract; or 

18 (3) a volunteer with the Internal Revenue Serv19 ice. 

20 (c) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

21 (1) PERSONAL DEVICE.—The term ‘‘personal 

22 device’’ means any electronic device (including mo23 bile devices, smartphones, tablet computing devices, 

24 or laptop computing devices) which— 

25 (A) is the personal property of an indi26 vidual described in subsection (b); 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4257 IS

1 (B) has not been furnished to an individual 

2 described in subsection (b) by the Internal Rev3 enue Service or any other Federal agency; or 

4 (C) in the case of an individual described 

5 in subsection (b)(2), has not been furnished to 

6 such individual by their employer (except in the 

7 case of an individual who is self-employed). 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s del10 egate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD 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 Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1) the Report fully comply 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Gabriel Kabazo
---------------------------------------
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 20, 2005
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with this annualreport on Form 10-K of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) for the period endedMarch 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer ofEMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of EMJ.

 

Date:  June 24, 2003

 

 
| /s/ WILLIAM  S. JOHNSON                                |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| William S.  Johnson                                    |
| Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EMJ and will beretained by EMJ and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

JEFFREY FLINT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

March 27, 2018

v No. 340043

Genesee Circuit Court

JOY SWEETIN, LC No. 17-321598-DC

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and METER, JJ.

JANSEN, J. (dissenting)

Because I would not have granted defendant sole legal custody of the minor child, I 

dissent. 

The trial court almost exclusively relied on the “education component” in awarding 

defendant sole legal custody. Specifically, the trial court found that up until its ruling, the parties 

had been unable to agree on where the minor child would attend school. Although disagreement 

on education is a factor properly considered by the trial court when awarding legal custody, in 

my view, the trial court adequately addressed the educational issue by awarding defendant 

physical custody of the minor child during the school year, and granting plaintiff parenting time. 

Accordingly, the educational issue was resolved. 

The only other factor cited by the trial court when awarding defendant sole legal custody 

was that parenting time exchanges were to take place at a police station. However, I do not 

believe that requiring parenting time exchanges take place at a police station justifies plaintiff 

losing the ability to have a say in legal or medical decisions regarding the minor child. This is 

particularly true where plaintiff consistently played an active role in the minor child’s life, and an

established custodial environment existed with plaintiff. Further, with respect to the best interest 

factors, absent the educational issues, the trial court found the parties were virtually equal. 

Based on the foregoing, I would vacate the portion of the trial court’s order granting 

defendant sole legal custody. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen
No. 52603.

protest 131779-K (San -Francisco).

#### H. Woods Co. *v.*United States,

*217Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared that the goods were subject to the British purchase tax and on entry a duress certificate was filed in which the importer certified that it had entered the merchandise at a value higher than that defined in the tariff act because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement. The collector disregarded said certificate and liquidated upon the entered value on the ground that the certificate was not signed, the signature being in typewriting. Under authority of *Clinton Smullyan Associates*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 7, C. A. D. 363) the court sustained the claim that the liquidation should have been made upon the basis of the value found by the court on appeal to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 6478), in which it was held that the British purchase tax was no part of the entered value.
From: O’Hare, Andrew < AOhare@cement.org >

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: " HolmesAems@aol.com " < HolmesAems@aol.com >, Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date : 03/22/2012 11:51 AM

Subject: Lehigh Union Bridge THC Data

Keith,

Pasted in below is an explanation provided by John Holmes addressing a transmission error for THC data from the

Lehigh Union Bridge plant.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

Regards,

And y

Andrew T. O'Hare

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

Portland Cement Association

500 New Jersey Avenue, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Office: (202) 408

- 9494

Fax: (202) 408

- 0877

Cell: (202) 270

- 0094

e

- mail: aohare@cement.org

From: HolmesAems@aol.com [ mailto:HolmesAems@aol.com ]

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:38 PM

To: O’Hare, Andrew

Subject: Lehigh Union Bridge THC Data

An dy,

As I indicated the other day, EPA noticed a peculiarity in the data in a file that AEMS created in 2010 and

that PCA forwarded to EPA. Keith and Sharon have asked that we notify them of the error and I said I

would provide you with an explanation tha t you could provide to them.

Specifically, we have looked at whether there was an error in the THC data for Lehigh Union Bridge in the

spreadsheet "THCCombinedData2010.06.13.xls". This spreadsheet was compiled during the THC study

in 2010 and then submitt ed to EPA in regard to the NESHAP rule for cement kilns. After review, we can

confirm that a mistake was made in compiling the data. Data for 30

- day averages were extracted from the

spreadsheet "THC

- dataset_v2.xls", and then those data were erroneously tre ated as daily averages and

they were subjected to a second 30

- day averaging procedure. As a result, the variability in 30

- day

average THC emissions from Union Bridge is significantly underestimated by the data appearing in

"THCCombinedData2010.06.13.xls". Those data are incorrect and should not be relied on.

John Holmes

President

AEMS, LLC
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 23 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 1- cr-8 01 11 -DTKH-5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PATRICK CAM PBELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10230 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 2Ri ch ardL. Ros enbaum , app oi nt edap pe ll at e co un se l fo r Patric k C am pb el l i n th is ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d h as fil eda br ie f pu rs uantto Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o a rg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andCam pb el l’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2

Case: 12-10230 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I 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 me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual 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 annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons 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.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

November 1, 2006

By /s/ Thomas Mills
Thomas E. Mills
President & Chief Financial Officer
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

        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Foundation Capital Partners I, LLLP (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the accounting period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

        This Certificate is given pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and for no other purpose.

| | /s/ A.J. Braswell                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | A.J. Braswell, Chief Executive Officer
of Foundation Capital Resources, Inc., 
General Partner of Foundation Capital 
Partners I, LLLP
Date: November 10, 2003
| |                                                                                                                                                               
| |                                                                                                                                                               
| |                                                                                                                                                               
| | /s/ Bobby D. Ray                                                                                                                                              
| | Bobby D. Ray, Chief Financial Officer
of Foundation Capital Resources, Inc.,
General Partner of Foundation Capital
Partners I, LLLP
Date: November 10, 2003
EXHIBIT 21.1
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 State or Other Jurisdiction ofName
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationIrwin Union Bank and Trust Company
    
    IndianaIrwin Commercial Finance Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Commercial Finance Corporation,
    
    IndianaEquipment FinanceIrwin Equipment Lease Funding, LLC
    
    DelawareIrwin Franchise Capital Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin International Corporation
    
    Edge ActIrwin Commercial Finance Canada Corporation
    
    CanadaOnset Alberta, Ltd.
    
    CanadaIrwin Union Securities, Inc.
    
    IndianaIrwin Union Collateral, Inc.
    
    IndianaIrwin Union Insurance, Inc.
    
    IndianaIrwin Union Advisory Services, Inc.
    
    IndianaIrwin Union Realty Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Home Equity Corporation
    
    IndianaIHE Funding Corp. II
    
    DelawareIrwin Mortgage Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Reinsurance Corporation
    
    VermontIrwin Union Investor Services, Inc.
    
    IndianaIFC Capital Trust VI
    
    Delaware




---



##### 



State or Other Jurisdiction ofName
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationIFC Statutory Trust VII
    
    ConnecticutIFC Capital Trust VIII
    
    DelawareIFC Capital Trust IX
    
    DelawareIFC Capital Trust X
    
    DelawareIFC Capital Trust XI
    
    DelawareIFC Mortgage Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Residual Holdings Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Funding Corp.
    
    DelawareIrwin Funding Corp. II
    
    DelawareIrwin Residual Holdings Corporation II
    
    IndianaIHE Funding Corp.
    
    DelawareIrwin Union Bank, F.S. B.
    
    FederalIrwin FSB Collateral, Inc.
    
    IndianaIrwin Equipment Finance Corporation
    
    IndianaIrwin Leasing Corporation
    
    IllinoisIrwin Ventures LLC
    
    DelawareIrwin Ventures SBIC LLC
    
    Delaware
No. 50911.

#### Protests 110765-K, etc., of Thorens Importing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE 

OF FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND DEADLINES FOR PRETRIAL SUBMISSIONS 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY 

WILLIAM A. GOULD (SBN 035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Tel: (916) 441-2430 

Fax: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants, THE FIRM OF JOHN 

DICKINSON SCHNEIDER, INC., HOLLISTER 

INCORPORATED, SAMUEL P. BRILLIANT, 

RICHARD I. FREMGEN, DONALD K. GRONEBERG, 

CHARLES H. GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, 

JAMES A. KARLOVSKY, LORI J. KELLEHER, 

JAMES J. MCCORMACK, CHARLES C. 

SCHELLENTRAGER, HOWARD I. SIMON, LORETTA 

L. STEMPINSKI, MICHAEL C. WINN and RICHARD 

T. ZWIRNER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC.; et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 LKK GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF 

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND 

DEADLINES FOR PRETRIAL 

SUBMISSIONS 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV. S-05-559 LKK GGH 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 564 Filed 07/31/09 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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE

OF FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND DEADLINES FOR PRETRIAL SUBMISSIONS

BRENDA DIMARO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV. S-05-1726 LKK GGH 

Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

Pursuant to the parties’ “Stipulation Regarding Continuance of Final 

Pretrial Conference and Deadlines for Pretrial Submissions,” 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Status Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be modified as follows: 

Plaintiffs’ pretrial statement shall be filed by September 28, 2009. Defendants’ 

pretrial statement shall be filed by October 5, 2009. The final pretrial 

conference is hereby moved to October 19, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2009 

454646.1 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 564 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 2
Eric J. Fygi 

Deputy General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

WILLIAM J. BAER 

Assistant Attorney General 

RFK Main Justice Building 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 

Washington. D.C. 20530-0001 

(202)5 14-240 l I (202)616-2645 (Fax) 

November 25, 2013 

I am responding to your September 24, 2013 letter seeking the views of the 

Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy 

conservation standards for certain types of commercial refrigeration equipment. Your 

request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires 

the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation 

standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other 

departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). 

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, 

by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by 

inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A 

lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers, 

and perhaps thwart the intent of the revised standards by inducing substitution to less 

efficient products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (78 Fed. Reg. 176, September 11, 2013). We have also reviewed 

supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General by the Department of 

Energy, including a transcript of the public meeting held on the proposed standards on 

October 3, 2013. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy 
November 25, 2013 

2 

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment are unlikely to have a 

significant adverse impact on competition. 

Enclosure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 -1- 

Substitution of Attorney

DANIEL P. MAGUIRE (SBN 191666) 

423 E Street 

Davis, CA 95616 

Telephone: (530) 750-3661 

Facsimile: (530) 750-3793 

Attorney for Plaintiff Jeffrey Clark 

DANIELLE Y. ROGERS (SBN 209048) 

1880 Cowell Blvd, #165 

Davis, CA 95616-6308 

drogersesq@hotmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Jeffrey Clark 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY CLARK, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HAMMACHER SCHLEMMER & 

CO., INC., and PHYSICIAN 

ENDORSED, LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-04-1618 FCD KIM 

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY 

Complaint Filed: August 10, 2004 

Plaintiff Jeffrey Clark hereby substitutes Danielle Rogers in place of Daniel 

Maguire as his counsel in this action. 

Dated: August 26, 2005 By: ____/S/ Jeffrey Clark_____________

 Jeffrey Clark 

Dated: August 25, 2005 By: ____/S/ Daniel Maguire__________

 Daniel P. Maguire 

Dated: August 25, 2005 By: ____/S/ Danielle Y. Rogers________

 Danielle Y. Rogers 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: September 8, 2005 By: /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. _______

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01618-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 1