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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 460

 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2023

 Ms. Smith (for herself and Mr. Mullin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Confer Act''.

SEC. 2. URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION CONFER POLICY.

     Section 514 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
1660d) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(b) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that the Service and 
the other agencies and offices of the Department confer, to the maximum 
extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations in carrying out--
            ``(1) this Act; and
            ``(2) other provisions of law relating to Indian health 
        care.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                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 of Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary Eubanks, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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




March 28, 2005                                  /s/ Mary Eubanks
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Mary Eubanks
                                                Acting Chief Financial 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN P. BURLEIGH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1963 DFL JFM P

vs.

D.V.I. (Deuel Vocational Institute)

MEDICAL,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 January 6, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not 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: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01963-DFL -JFM Document 8 Filed 06/27/05 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

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

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/24/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01963-DFL -JFM Document 8 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8183)

#### Broadway Department Store et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 11462, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1952)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked *“A”*on the invoices and initialed HJR, CEC and CDG by customs examiners H. J. Reed, C. E. Clouse and C. D. Gilroy, respectively, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiff, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or in said section, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed HJR, CEC, or CDG by Customs Examiners H. J. Reed, C. E. Clouse, or C. D. Gilroy, respectively, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

*514The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

vs.

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ November 14, 2005 request for a thirty-day enlargement of time

is granted; and

2. The time for filing Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus is extended to December 14, 2005.

DATED: November 15, 2005.

/avar1044.ext2

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 31 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 47383.

#### Protests 997057-G, etc., of A. N. Deringer, Inc. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
MCES, Metropolitan WWTP (MCES' main WWTP) Mercury Reductions Through 2010 Minneapolis - St. Paul, Minnesota Metropolitan Area METRO INFLUENT Hg LOADING (g/day) Summary statistics through Statistic 2003 2004 2005 2006 N 59 94 142 133 Average 261 213 220 187 Median 241 191 179 156 25th Percentile 204 164 141 128 75th Percentile 288 234 230 207 Minimum 116 94 89 59 Maximum 625 615 1216 910 Change from previous year (%) NA -21 -6 -13 Cumulative change since 2003 (%) 0 -21 -26 -35

Peter Berglund, 651-602-4708

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

2002 2003200420052006200720082009 Median daily influent Hg load, Metro (g/day)

data through 10/20/2010MCES, Metropolitan WWTP (MCES' main WWTP) Mercury Reductions Through 2010

10/20/2010 2007 2008 2009 2010 120 126 138 77 138 142 142 139 121 124 130 118 98 98 104 94 156 161 158 147 50 48 43 58 429 450 455 724
-23 2 4 -9 -50 -49 -46 -51

200920102011

75th percentile median 25th percentile

data through 10/20/2010
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

Fay Arfa, Attorney at Law

CA Bar No. 100143

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., #300

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: (310) 841-6805

Attorney for Petitioner

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS, 

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELLS, Warden,

Respondent.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:04 - CV01516 DFL - GGH 

 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing now set for December 15,

2005 at 10:00 a.m. be continued until January 26, 2006. Counsel for

petitioner is order to file any reply and opposition on or before January 6,

2006.

DATED: 12/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

coll1516.con

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/12/05 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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/19/05 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 plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel filed April 22, 2005, is denied.

DATED: 5/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

high887.31

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/19/05 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

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

GEORGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-cv-2255 LKK PAN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or

preliminary injunction. Good cause appearing, defendants will be directed to file a response to

plaintiff’s motion.

On June 30, 2006, defendant Flint filed a request for an extension of time to serve

responses to plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. Good cause appearing, the request will be

granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Within fifteen days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a

response to plaintiff’s May 4, 2006 motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be

filed and served not later than ten days thereafter.

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 35 Filed 07/19/06 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

27

28

Order

2

2. Defendant Flint’s June 30, 2006 request for extension of time is granted. Defendant

Flint is granted an extension of time, to and including July 14, 2006, to complete and serve

responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.

DATED: July 18, 2006.

/john2255.ext

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 35 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4587 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to include rural emergency hospitals 

in the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the drug discount 

program under section 340B of such Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. PETERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to include rural 

emergency hospitals in the definition of a covered entity 

for purposes of the drug discount program under section 

340B of such Act. 

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 ‘‘Rural 340B Access 

5 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4587 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUDING RURAL EMERGENCY HOSPITALS AS 

2 COVERED ENTITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THE 

3 DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public 

5 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(P)(i) An entity that is a rural emergency 

8 hospital (as defined in section 1861(kkk)(2) of 

9 the Social Security Act) that is owned or oper10 ated by a unit of State or local government, is 

11 a public or private non-profit corporation that 

12 is formally granted governmental powers by a 

13 unit of State or local government, or is a pri14 vate non-profit rural emergency hospital that 

15 has a contract with a State or local government 

16 to provide health care services to low income in17 dividuals who are not entitled to benefits under 

18 title XVIII of the Social Security Act or eligible 

19 for assistance under a State plan under title 

20 XIX of such Act. 

21 ‘‘(ii) In the case of an entity that meets 

22 the requirements described in clause (i) after 

23 the date of enactment of the Rural 340B Ac24 cess Act of 2024, such entity shall not be con25 sidered to be a covered entity for purposes of 

26 this paragraph unless such entity was, as of the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4587 IS

1 date of enactment of the Rural 340B Access 

2 Act of 2024, a covered entity under subpara3 graph (L) of this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

TERRY MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2116 FCD DAD P

vs.

A,A, LARMARQUE, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The amended petition was filed December

6, 2004. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

amended petition. 

On December 6, 2004, petitioner also filed a handwritten document in which he

stated “I’m also asking for a motion for a stay.” In light of the context in which this statement

was made, the court has construed it as petitioner’s request for additional time in which to file his

amended petition. In light of this order and the filing of petitioner’s amended petition, the

request for an extension of time will be denied as moot.

Case 2:04-cv-02116-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 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

On December 6, 2004, petitioner also requested the appointment of counsel. 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See

Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes

the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See

Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the

interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

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

1. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s amended petition

within thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An

answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the

determination of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases;

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of

service of an answer;

3. If the response to petitioner’s amended petition is a motion, petitioner’s

opposition or statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service

of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; 

4. Petitioner’s December 6, 2004 motions for an extension of time and for

appointment of counsel are denied; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo

Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

DAD:4

mon2116.100

Case 2:04-cv-02116-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 50986.

#### Protests 18703-K, etc., of Geo. J. Higginson et al. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the bourt dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our 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.




Date: March 26, 2012




By: /s/ Haim Romano

——————————————

Name: Haim Romano

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Date: March 26, 2012




By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: Chief Financial Officer
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4072 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 49651.

#### Protest 21337-K of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question consists of wild rice similar to that the subject of *Davis*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 189, C. D. 751) it was held properly dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
No. 46722.

#### Protest 63891-K of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the celluloid dolls in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 44605. The *421claim at 1 cent each and 60 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1513 was therefore, sustained.
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

RONALD DWANE BROOK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1254 GEB GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed June 30,

2005 denying plaintiff’s third request for the appointment of

counsel. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling

was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 49 Filed 08/16/05 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

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon

reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed June 30,

2005, is affirmed. 

Dated: August 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 49 Filed 08/16/05 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

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend Time

To Respond to First Amended Complaint

BRENDA CRUZ KEITH, State Bar No. 108425

Lawyer

1965 Market Street, 2nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

Telephone : (415) 626-6494

Facsimile : (415) 626-9835

Attorney for Defendant,

FIRST RED BLUFF, L.L.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL LOSKOT, ) CASE NO. 2:04-CV-01960 GEB PAN

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

) ORDER EXTENDING TIME

v. ) TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

LABORATORY CORPORATION )

OF AMERICA dba REDDING )

PATHOLOGIST LABORATORY; )

FIRST RED BLUFF, L.L.C., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-143, Plaintiff Marshall Loskot and Defendant First Red Bluff, 

by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that Defendant First Red Bluff, L.L.C.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-01960-GEB-PAN Document 32 Filed 06/09/05 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

Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend Time

To Respond to First Amended Complaint

shall have an extension of up to and including June 2, 2005 in which to file and serve a response

to the First Amended Complaint on file herein

IT IS SO STIPULATED

Dated :05/30/05 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD

/S/ Lynn Hubbard, III, Esq.

LYNN HUBBARD III

SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD IV

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

MARSHALL LOSKOT

Dated :05/31/05 /S/ Brenda Cruz Keith, Esq.

BRENDA CRUZ KEITH

Attorney for Defendant,

FIRST RED BLUFF, L.L.C.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01960-GEB-PAN Document 32 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 2