alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ali Yazdchi v. Wells Fargo

Appellate case number: 01-15-00381-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-23577

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

By our order dated October 13, 2015, we stated that appellant’s brief will be due 

30 days after the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

34.5(c). On November 11, 2015, the trial court clerk filed the supplemental clerk’s 

record. 

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of 

this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 13, 2015
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

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2360 MCE CMK P

vs.

 EDWARD ALMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

On September 6, 2006, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants [sic]

Notice of Taking Deposition.” (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff objects to defendants deposing him because

he cannot afford an attorney to represent him and the court refuses to appoint counsel for him in

this matter. Plaintiff appears to argue that, in light of his ongoing efforts to secure counsel and

his inability to secure such, allowing him to be deposed would violate Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 32(a)(3)(E). 

Plaintiff has no right to counsel in this civil rights action, and the court has no

authority to require an attorney to represent him in a civil rights action. See Mallard v. United

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections to being

deposed on the grounds that he is not represented by counsel are groundless. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02360-ALA Document 36 Filed 09/13/06 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

IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff is ordered to submit to the September 22, 2006

deposition, which has been duly and timely noticed.

DATED: September 12, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02360-ALA Document 36 Filed 09/13/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff, 

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The pretrial conference had been scheduled for June 28, 2010 and trial was

scheduled for August 10, 2010. However, those dates are vacated. This case will be referred to

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman to conduct a settlement conference on August 3, 2010, at

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom #25. 

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

1. The pretrial conference and trial dates set forth in the court’s March 24, 2010

order (Doc. 69) are vacated;

2. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Kendall J.

Newman on August 3, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, in

Courtroom #25. 

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 70 Filed 06/17/10 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

3. Parties are to appear with full settlement authority.

4. The parties are directed to exchange non-confidential settlement statements

seven days prior to this settlement conference. These statements shall simultaneously be

delivered to the court using the following email address: kjnorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff

shall either mail or deliver his settlement statement to the Clerk’s Office, located on the 4 Floor. th

If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the court, they may do so

pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e).

5. Should settlement not be successful the court will reschedule the trial date. 

6. Should settlement not be successful plaintiff shall file and serve his pretrial

statement and any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial on or before

September 6, 2010. Defendants shall file their pretrial statement on or before September 20,

2010. The pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 16-282) will be set in this case for

September 27, 2010, before the magistrate judge. The pretrial conference shall be conducted on

the file only, without appearance by either party.

DATED: June 17, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH: AB

okee1695.med

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 70 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 50410.

#### Protests 943748-G, etc., of A. G. Dal Brun et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 51716.

#### Protest 114835-K of Paramount Distillers, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of barrel No. 78 was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of June, 2010.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
-----------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:00 PM

To: daugherty@ohaky.com

Subject: Trip Report

Hi Steve, this is a courtesy e-mail letting you know that the trip report that we sent back for you to review 

will be classified as non-CBI and is considered to be an accurate account of your aluminum operations. 

Comments were due back to our office on September 16, 2010. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA HERNANDEZ, )

) CIV. S-04-1747 GEB PAN

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

STEVE MARTINEZ, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff’s Status Report, filed on October 17, 2005,

reveals that the Magistrate Judge has under submission the default

judgment of Defendant. Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Conference set for October 31, 2005, is continued to March 6, 2006, at

9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than

February 21, 2006, in which Plaintiff is only required to explain the

status of the default issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: October 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 26 Filed 10/21/05 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

CLETE REO HART, No. 2:04-cv-1424-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 13, 2006, 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 (20) 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-01424-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 08/30/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2006, are adopted in full; and

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

41(b).

DATED: August 30, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01424-MCE -DAD Document 19 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

17 USCMA 54, 37 CMR 318

*55No. 20,054

May 26, 1967

*Colonel Joseph Buckta*and *Lieutenant Colonel Milton E. Kosa*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James R. Thorn*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, wrongful possession, sale, and use of marihuana, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. As approved, his sentence includes a dishonorable discharge and confinement at hard labor for five years.

During the sentence proceedings, the court-martial was informed that smoking marihuana was “an old thing” for the accused because he had been doing it since he was twelve years of age and “everybody seems to do it where he comes from.” No instruction was given as to the limited purpose for which the court could consider the evidence of offenses not charged. The omission was error. United States v Gewin, 14 USCMA 224, 34 CMR 4; United States v Turner, 16 USCMA 80, 36 CMR 236. Although the sentence imposed by the court-martial was reduced by the convening authority on the initial review, the effect of the instructional error on the sentence was not considered. Corrective action, therefore, is still required. Cf. United States v Peters, 8 USCMA 520, 25 CMR 24.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to the board of review for reconsideration of the sentence, in light of this opinion.
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

Stipulation and Order re Continuance of Pre-Trial Conference

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

County of San Joaquin

DANIEL C. CEDERBORG, CSB #124260

Deputy County Counsel

JASON R. MORRISH, CSB #192686

Deputy County Counsel

Courthouse - Room 711

222 East Weber Avenue

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 468-2980

Attorneys for Defendants, 

 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, DEPUTY RICHARD

 DUNSING, and LT. MENDOZA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT T. BROWN, individually and on

behalf of Class of Persons similarly situated,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, SHERIFF

BAXTER DUNN, SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY and DOES I

through X inclusive,

 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-2008 FCD PAN

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING PRE-TRIAL

CONFERENCE

 

 

Plaintiff ROGER T. BROWN and Defendants COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, DEPUTY

RICHARD DUNSING, and LT. MENDOZA, by and through their respective counsel,

respectfully submit this STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING PRE-TRIAL

CONFERENCE for consideration by the Court. This stipulation is submitted at the request of

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Bruce Nickerson, who will be out of the country from July 27, 2006 until

August 14, 2006. Plaintiff has also recently made a settlement offer to the COUNTY OF SAN

JOAQUIN that will be considered at the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ meeting on

Case 2:04-cv-02008-FCD-EFB Document 60 Filed 07/18/06 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

2

Stipulation and Order re Continuance of Pre-Trial Conference

August 1, 2006. The parties hereby agree to request an order of the Court to a continuance of the

Pre-Trial Conference in this matter currently scheduled for August 11, 2006 to a date convenient

for the Court at least ten days after August 14, 2006. The parties will submit their joint Pre-trial

Statement one week in advance of any date set for the Conference by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

Dated: July 17, 2006 By: /s/ Daniel C. Cederborg 

DANIEL C. CEDERBORG

 Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendants,

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, DEPUTY

RICHARD DUNSING and LT. MENDOZA

Dated: July 17, 2006

By: /s/ Bruce W. Nickerson 

BRUCE W. NICKERSON 

 Attorney at Law

Attorney for Plaintiff,

ROBERT T. BROWN

ORDER OF THE COURT

The Parties to this action having stipulated to a continuance of the Pre-trial Conference in

this matter currently scheduled for August 11, 2006 and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The August 11, 2006 date for the Pre-trial Conference is vacated. The Pre-trial

conference in this matter shall take place on September 1, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. The parties shall

file their joint Pre-trial Statement by August 25, 2006. 

Date: July 18, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

Hon. Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02008-FCD-EFB Document 60 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8685)

Entry No. 2-Y.

#### United States *v.*E. L. Kempthorne

(Decided October 17, 1956)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney .General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon an oral stipulation to the effect that the price at which merchandise such as or similar to that covered by the above appeal was freely offered for sale in the usual wholesale quantity in the ordinary course of trade in the principal market of the country of exportation for home consumption was $8 per rafter, less 10 per centum, and that the price for exportation was not higher.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper foreign value of the involved merchandise to be $8 per rafter, less 10 per centum. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0199 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0199

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 May 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (COM(2006)0382 - C6-0244/2006 - 2006/0133(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0277 - 0277 *

P6_TA(2007)0199

Roaming on public mobile networks ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 May 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (COM(2006)0382 — C6-0244/2006 — 2006/0133(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0382),

- having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0244/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0155/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
Before the First Division,

May 5, 1960

No. 64137.

protests 279695-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### S. H. Kress & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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, 2014, 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 11, 2015
  By: /s/ Haim Romano

——————————————

Name: Haim Romano

Title: Chief Executive Officer
  Date: March 11, 2015
  By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: Chief Financial Officer
No. 64892.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/34552 and 58/23241 (Philadelphia).

*373Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tennis or badminton racket strings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61832, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. '•
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

             CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Claude Fernandez, acting Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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; and

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

/s/  Claude Fernandez
     -------------------------------------------
     Claude Fernandez
     acting Chief Financial Officer

         11/14/2005

     Date

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
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 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 - Case No. CIV.S-04-1815 WBS JFM 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

ERIC B. SIMON (SBN 160077) 

LUCY F. WANG (SBN 199772) 

225 Bush Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104-4207 

Telephone: (415) 397-2700 

Facsimile: (415) 397-3300 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MODERN GROUP LTD. AND DRAGON ESP, LTD. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FREDERICK GRANGE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MODERN GROUP LTD., DRAGON ESP, 

LTD., ESPM, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-1815 WBS JFM 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF 

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, through their 

respective counsel, that the discovery cut-off date established in the Court’s December 2, 2004, 

Case Management Order, be extended 30 days up to and including September 29, 2005. The 

extension of the discovery cut-off date will not effect any of the other dates set by the Court. 

Dated: August __ , 2005 DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

 ERIC B. SIMON 

LUCY F. WANG 

By: _________________________________ 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MODERN GROUP LTD. AND 

DRAGON ESP, LTD. 

Case 2:04-cv-01815-WBS -JFM Document 82 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 

 27 

 28 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 - Case No. CIV.S-04-1815 WBS JFM 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

Dated: August __, 2005 SCHEER & IMFELD, LLP 

 MICHAEL D. IMFELD 

 

 

 

By: _________________________________ 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FREDERICK GRANGE 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01815-WBS -JFM Document 82 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2