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

1

 From the document filed by plaintiff on October 3, 2005, it appears petitioner was

having trouble obtaining defendant Sandham’s address. On October 11, 2005, counsel for

defendants Rohlfing, Bates and Winter filed a document indicating she provided plaintiff with

Sandham’s last known address in a letter mailed to plaintiff on October 3, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2291 FCD KJM P

vs.

RICHARD SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to comply with this court’s

July 27, 2005 order.1 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 18 Filed 10/13/05 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. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall comply with the court’s July 27, 2005 order within thirty days. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

wash2291.usm

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 18 Filed 10/13/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. MEAD, TRUSTEE, No. CIV-S-04-2261 MCE/DAD PS

ROBERT M. MEAD LIVING TRUST,

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER 

RICHARD L. DICKINSON, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 4, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff and

defendants have filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. (See Doc. nos. 11 & 15.)

///

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 4
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 their objections, defendants request only that the 1

court issue Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against

plaintiff. However, the magistrate judge denied an earlier

request by defendants for Rule 11 sanctions, explaining that “no

Rule 11 motion has been properly briefed or noticed for hearing

as required by the Local Rules.” (Order filed December 7, 2004.) 

Defendants’ renewed request for sanctions in their objections is

also unsupported by any meaningful showing. Therefore,

defendants’ request for Rule 11 sanctions is denied. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A)(“A motion for sanctions under this rule shall

be made separately from other motions or requests and shall

describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision

(b).”). 

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case and has considered the parties

objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis. The court has determined that

there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based

on the points raised in the parties’ objections.1

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2004,

are adopted in full; 

2. This state civil action is summarily remanded to the

Sacramento County Superior Court; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DATED: November 2, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 2:04-cv-02261-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/04/05 Page 4 of 4
No. 51719.

#### Protests 116196-K, etc., 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 barrels numbered 18, 21, 27, 33, 37, 47, 54, 59, 74, 81, 95, 109, 121, 122, 127, 133, 148, 158, 167, 172, 191, 197, 12, 26, 75, 94, and 115, 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 gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importer. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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

TIMOTHY M. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2131 GEB GGH P

vs.

T. FAULKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On October 12, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On July 5, 2005, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a

motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motion

and finds that it has merit. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 01/27/06 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. Defendants’ October 12, 2005, motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 1/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

jenn2131.46

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10088)

#### Sage Mfg. Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 66425; 70530; 70529; 68385.

*483(Decided October 24, 1961)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed above have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe parties hereto, that tbe merchandise consists of item number 140 shirt and short sets exported from Japan during the first quarter of 1961.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that export value as defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended is the proper basis for the appraisement of this merchandise and that said export value of the shirts marked A and checked HAP by examiner H. A. Fichtenbaum on the invoices covered by the above named appeals for reappraisement is $1.839 per dozen plus 5% net packed and that said export value for the shorts marked B and cheeked HAF by examiner H. A. Fichtenbaum on said invoices is $3.14 per dozen plus 5% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise does not appear on the final list (T.D. 64521) published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above named appeals be submitted on this stipulation said appeals being limited to the merchandise mai’ked A or B as aforesaid.

On tbe agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402(b) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be tbe proper basis for the determination of the value of tbe merchandise covered by said appeals and that such values were for tbe shirts marked A and checked HAF, by Examiner H. A. Fichtenbaum, on the invoices covered by said appeals, $1.839 per dozen, plus 5 per centum net packed, and for the shorts marked B and checked HAF, by said examiner, on said invoices, $3.14 per dozen, plus 5 per centum, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 31.A
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Lisa A. Stewart, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Production Holding Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: November 7, 2005          /s/ Lisa A. Stewart    Lisa A. Stewart    President(Principal Executive Officer)El Paso Production Holding Company
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

WILLIAM ROCHA, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2274 FCD GGH P

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

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 November 9, 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 filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

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

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

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 9, 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:December 7, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/07/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1971 MCE EFB

vs.

INTEGRATED NETWORK 

SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 25, 2010, the undersigned issued an order which, among other things, granted

plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Ehteram Ghodsian to respond to judgment interrogatories

and production demands; granted plaintiff’s related request for sanctions; ordered Ghodsian to

respond to plaintiff’s judgment interrogatories and production demands within fourteen days;

and ordered Ghodsian to reimburse plaintiff for its expenses incurred in making its motion to

compel, in the total amount of $562.50, within thirty days. Dckt. No. 379.

On April 2, 2010, Ghodsian filed a letter with the court regarding her “serious medical

issues” and financial hardship. Dckt. No. 380. The court will construe Ghodsian’s letter, in part,

as a request for reconsideration by the undersigned of the March 25, 2010 order, pursuant to

Local Rule 303.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 391 Filed 05/03/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Ghodsian’s April 2, 2010 letter to the court is construed, in part, as a

request for reconsideration by the undersigned of the March 25, 2010 order, pursuant to Local

Rule 303. 

2. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the request

for reconsideration on or before May 12, 2010.

3. On or before May 26, 2010, defendant Ghodsian may file a reply to any opposition

filed by plaintiff.

Dated: May 3, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 391 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, E. Nelson Mills, Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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 Registrant.




/s/ E. NELSON MILLSE. Nelson MillsPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 6, 2011/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMSDouglas P. WilliamsPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 6, 2011
No. 51690.

#### Protests 6931-K, etc., of John Heathcoat & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

 

 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 March 7, 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 days. 

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 103 Filed 03/31/06 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

 On March 15, 2006, plaintiff requested an extension to 1

file his objections. The court granted his request in part and

gave him until Thursday, March 30, to file objections. Plaintiff

did not file timely objections. 

2

recommendations.1

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: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 7, 2006,

are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant Cry’s motion to dismiss is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/31/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 103 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Natural Gas

View History: Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

Created with Highcharts 3.0.10Million Cubic FeetU.S. Natural Gas Gross 

WithdrawalsU.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals 

19401950196019701980199020002010010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,000

U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals Year : 196417,535,553 Million Cubic FeetSource: 

U.S. Energy Information Administration

U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9

1930's 2,691,512 3,084,567 3,108,858 3,387,095

1940's 3,752,702 4,168,116 4,525,095 5,024,449 5,708,288 6,000,161 6,293,037 6,733,230 7,178,777 7,546,825

1950's 8,479,650 9,689,372 10,272,566 10,645,798 10,984,850 11,719,794 12,372,905 12,906,669 13,146,635 14,229,272

1960's 15,087,911 15,460,312 16,038,973 16,973,368 17,535,553 17,963,100 19,033,839 20,251,776 21,325,000 22,679,195

1970's 23,786,453 24,088,031 24,016,109 24,067,202 22,849,793 21,103,530 20,943,778 21,097,071 21,308,815 21,883,353

1980's 21,869,692 21,587,453 20,272,254 18,659,046 20,266,522 19,606,699 19,130,711 20,140,200 20,999,255 21,074,425

1990's 21,522,622 21,750,108 22,132,249 22,725,642 23,580,706 23,743,628 24,113,536 24,212,677 24,108,128 23,822,711

2000's 24,173,875 24,500,779 23,941,279 24,118,978 23,969,678 23,456,822 23,535,018 24,663,656 25,636,257 26,056,893

2010's 26,816,085 28,479,026 29,542,313 30,171,367

- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. 

Release Date: 5/30/2014

Next Release Date: 6/30/2014

Referring Pages:

 Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals 

 U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production

 Total Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (Summary) 


No. 51729.

#### Protest 116106-K of Paramount Distillers, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, 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 the barrels numbered 149, 150, 175, 188, and 193, 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.
No. 62591.

#### Sam Forwand Co. *v.*United States,

protest 330375-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Keller, et al.

v. CASE NUMBER: CIV S-04-1325 LKK DAD

City of Stockton, et al.

XX -- Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE JURY VERDICT RENDERED March 31, 2006: 

$500,000 Compensatory Damages and $1,000,000 in Punitive Damages 

awarded to Crystal Keller. $100,000 Compensatory Damages and 

$1,000,000 in Punitive Damages awarded to Dennis Keller

JACK L. WAGNER,

CLERK OF COURT

ENTERED: April 3, 2006

by:__/s/ P. Warren____

 P. Warren, Deputy Clerk

FILED

April 3, 2006

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

DEPUTY CLERK

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 68 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NADINE JOHNSON : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v.

:

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC. : NO. 02-4489

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION HEARING

Please take note that the above-captioned civil action case has been scheduled for

ARBITRATION at 9:30 am on Thursday, January 16, 2003. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS

ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE ROBERT N.C. NIX BUILDING, 900

MARKET ST., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107. REPORT TO ROOM 339 FOR YOUR ROOM

ASSIGNMENT. NOTE: Arbitrators shall not participate in settlement discussions.

Michael E. Kunz

Clerk of Court

By: 

ADRIENNE MANN

Deputy Clerk

Phone:267-299-7075

Date:October 2, 2002

Copies: Rita Polkowski, Secretary to Judge Yohn

Docket Clerk - Case File

Counsel: Andrea M. Deutsch, Esq.

Frank Campese, Jr., Esq.

Butler Buchanan, III, Esq.

ARB2.FRM

Case 2:02-cv-04489-WY Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1