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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK HUNGERFORD,

Plaintiff, No. 2:04-cv-01455 LKK CMK (PC)

vs.

BEVERLY HEROUX, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order filed June 1, 2005, granting defendant’s motion to stay discovery. 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.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed June 1, 2005, is affirmed. 

DATED: August 11, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/hung1455.850

Case 2:04-cv-01455-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 1
# C_2007052EN.01000201.xml

| 7.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 52/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 24.1.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 632/06 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Dotacje do podręczników akademickich |
| Legal basis | 1) | Art. 109 ust. 5 ustawy z dnia 30.6.2005 r. o finansach publicznych |

Date of adoption of the decision

24.1.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 632/06

Member State

Poland

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Dotacje do podręczników akademickich

Legal basis

1)

Art. 109 ust. 5 ustawy z dnia 30.6.2005 r. o finansach publicznych

| 2) | Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 10.7.2006 r. w sprawie stawek, szczegółowego sposobu oraz trybu udzielania dotacji przedmiotowych do podręczników akademickich |
| --- | --- |

2)

Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 10.7.2006 r. w sprawie stawek, szczegółowego sposobu oraz trybu udzielania dotacji przedmiotowych do podręczników akademickich

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

—

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: PLN 12 million; Overall budget: —

Intensity

—

Duration

1.1.2007-31.12.2012

Economic sectors

Education

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego |
| --- |
| ul. Wspólna 1/3 |
| PL-00-529 Warszawa |

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego

ul. Wspólna 1/3

PL-00-529 Warszawa

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
Before the Second Division,

June 14, 1962

No. 66855.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/4330 and 60/31249 (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Skip NavigationEn Español

You are here:                Home » Disorders A - Z » Neurological Complications of AIDS »             

Skip secondary menu

Home

Disorders A - Z

Information Page

Publications

Organizations

News

Research literature

Other related groupsOrganizationsProfessional SocietiesGovernment Resources

NINDS Clinical Trials

En EspañolOrder Brochures

News From NINDS

Recovery Act

Funding Information

Research Programs

Training & Career Awards

Enhancing Diversity

Find People

About NINDS

 

Email this pagePrint-friendly versionContact NINDS

----

Adobe ReaderMicrosoft Word Viewer

# Neurological Complications of AIDS Fact Sheet

See a list of all NINDS Disorders

Get Web page suited for printing                              			Email this to a friend or colleague                              			

## Table of Contents (click to jump to sections)
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 The Order filed April 27, 2005, required the party

timely filing a status report to “include a declaration

explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

other party or parties.” (April 27 Order at 2, n.2.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE L. HODGES, )

) CIV. S-04-2535 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SHASTA; CITY OF REDDING; ) CONFERENCE

LARRY F. MOTY Chief of Polica; ) 

JIM POPE, Shasta County Sheriff; )

DEPUTY PAT LANHAM; OFFICER ZUFALL; )

OFFICER FREDRICK; OFFICER BEEMAN; )

CORPORAL BULLINGTON; OFFICER )

MAGLEBY; OFFICER ZALES; OFFICER )

ZALESNY; OFFICER WILKES; OFFICER )

SCHULTZ; OFFICER MORAVEC; OFFICER )

FREDRICK; OFFICER OSTROWSKI; )

Doe Officers 1-15, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The unilateral Pretrial Status Report filed May 23, 2005,

contains a section which is unclear about service of process and does

not explain why none of the defendants participated in the preparation

and filing of a status report.1

Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) no later than 4:00

p.m. on June 27, 2005, why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule

16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 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

2 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

counsel and/or Plaintiff for the failure to include this ordered

declaration. The written response shall state whether Plaintiff or

counsel is at fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.2

If a hearing is requested, it will be held on July 11, 2005, at 9:00

a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to

that date. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the

November 30, 2004, and June 27, 2005, Orders, the parties are to file

a joint status report no later than June 27, 2005. Further, Plaintiff

is required to explain why and when Plaintiff plans to prosecute the

action against any Defendant whom Plaintiff contends has been served

but has not responded to service.

Dated: May 31, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 41791.

#### Protests 611377-G, etc., of G. Ascione, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California )

corporation, ) CIV. S-04-2372 GEB GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

) 

DAVID GREENBERG, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Voluntary

Dismissal of Defendant David Greenberg.” Greenberg is dismissed and

since he is the only Defendant, the Clerk of Court is directed to

close the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02372-GEB-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 MERCURY AIR GROUP, INC CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION I, Robert Schlax, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on SEC Form 10-K of Mercury Air
Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining 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
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c. disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect,the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions); a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. /s/ ROBERT SCHLAXRobert SchlaxChief Financial Officer September 28, 2004
March 22, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., Washington, DC 20590

Re quest for amendment to FAA 333 UAS Exemption Exemption No. 12592 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 2411

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to the Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Reform Act"), Christopher Teren (the "applicant"), operator of an Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("UAS") seeks an amendment his existing 333 exemption as listed and described below.

Applicant Christopher Teren 400 False Bay Drive Friday Harbor, WA 98250

1. Additional Aircraft

Christopher Teren would like to add additional UAS aircraft to the existing exemption. He would like to add all of the aircraft on the FAA Approved Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Make/Model under Section 333 list, Updated March 4, 2016

– Regulatory Docket FAA

- 2007

- 3330



### Thank you for your consideration.

Christopher	Teren
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARISCAL SANTOS ZAMORANO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50461

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01019-JLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Mariscal Santos Zamorano appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for being a removed

alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Zamorano’s counsel has filed a brief

FILED

SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Zamorano the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed. 

Zamorano waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 14-50461
Exhibit 10.62


 


Summary Translation of Sample Purchase
and Sales Contract


 


Note: The summary translation agreement below
is summary translation of one of a series of agreements between Yantai Mouping District Zhisheng Agricultural Produce Cooperative
and Nanyang Hanye Tegang Co., Ltd. that the companies use that constitute separate agreements, yet all such agreements are nearly
identical in most respects, except for the specific term, price, and subject of the purchase or sale order (e.g., apples, grapes,
pears, etc.).


 


Party A: Yantai Mouping District Zhisheng
Agricultural Produce Cooperative


 


Party B: Nanyang Hanye Tegang Co.,
Ltd.


 


Products: vegetable gift boxes, apples and
pears


 


Party A shall provide products with expected
quality and shall be responsible for the delivery to the inspected site of Party B. Packaging and transportation fees will be borne
by Party A. Party A shall be responsible for any financial loss caused by the quality issues. Failure of the contract performance
caused by natural disaster shall not be borne by either party.


 


The duration of the contract is 2012-06-01
to 2012-06-30.


 


The contract signed on: 2012-05-30
No. 47397.

#### Protests 70324-K, etc., of Louis Wolf & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54062.

#### Person & Weidhorn *v.*United States,

protests 147859-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, 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

JESSE WASHINGTON, No. CIV-S-04-1317 MCE/GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

J. FANNON, 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 September 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 11/17/05 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction filed

August 4, 2005 is denied.

DATED: November 16, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 11/17/05 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

1

Robert Mehlhaff

MEHLHAFF & HAY

Attorneys at Law

23950 S. Chrisman Road, Ste. A

P.O. Box 1129

Tracy, CA 95378-1129

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WHITE LAKE MUTUAL WATER CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant;

CIV. S-04-2565-LKK/DAD

PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST TO

EXTEND DISPOSITIONAL

DOCUMENT FILING DATE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Counterclaimant,

v.

WHITE LAKE MUTUAL WATER CO.,

Counterclaim Defendant.

The parties have taken longer than expected to carry out the communications needed to

arrive at dispositional documents effectuating their settlement. They estimate that they can

put the dispositional documents into final form for the Court within another sixty days. They

therefore stipulate and request that the Court modify its Order filed July 13, 2005, to extend

the dispositional document filing date from September 9, 2005, until November 8, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02565-LKK -DAD Document 15 Filed 09/12/05 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

2

Dated: September 7, 2005 MEHLHAFF & HAY

By: /s/ Robert Mehlhaff 

ROBERT MEHLHAFF

Attorneys for Plaintiff and

Counterclaim Defendant 

WHITE LAKE MUTUAL WATER

COMPANY

Dated: September 6, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Y H T Himel 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL

Assistant U. S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant and

Counterclaimant

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Of Counsel:

KAREN D. KOCH

Assistant Regional Solicitor

United States Department of the Interior

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 978-5687

Facsimile: (916) 978-5694

ORDER

It is APPROVED and SO ORDERED. The dispositional document filing date of

September 9, 2005, is EXTENDED by 60 days. The parties shall submit their dispositional

document or documents to the court by November 8, 2005.

DATED: September 12, 2005 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02565-LKK -DAD Document 15 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy Incorporated (1)





|Name of Company                   | State of Incorporation
|--------------------------------- | ----------------------
|                                  |                       
|Kansas City Power & Light Company | Missouri              
|                                  |                       
|KLT Inc.                          | Missouri              
|                                  |                       
|KLT Energy Services Inc.          | Missouri              
|                                  |                       
|Custom Energy Holdings, L.L.C.    | Delaware              
|                                  |                       
|Strategic Energy, L.L.C.          | Delaware              

(1)  Certain subsidiaries of Great Plains Energy Incorporated have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(21)(ii) of Regulation S-K.  The indentation of the subsidiaries indicates ownership relationship to Great Plains Energy Incorporated.
November 22, 1957

No. 61382.

protest 290567-K and 5 others.

#### Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned October 16, 1957. (Not published.) (Initial No. 290567-K and 2 others and initial No. 292736-K and 2 others.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Order for Dismissal of Claims (Equifax) in Fong v Credit Solutions 

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

27

28

Mark F. Anderson (SBN 44787) 

Kan Tung Donohoe (SBN 197785) 

Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie LLP 

445 Bush Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Ph: (415) 861-2265 

Fax: (415) 861-3151 

mark@kabolaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cendra S Fong and Michael W Fong 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CENDRA S FONG and MICHAEL W FONG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CREDIT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; et al, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 04 1929 GEB KJM 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT EQUIFAX 

INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs’ claims against 

defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC are dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any 

party. 

DATED: July 14, 2005 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL,JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01929-GEB -KJM Document 41 Filed 07/15/05 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

 Defendants’ motion, originally filed on August 22, 2005, was re-served on plaintiff’s

1

current address on September 6, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2660 LKK GGH P

vs.

G.S. DHALIWAL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On September 6, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 1

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 May 24, 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

Case 2:04-cv-02660-LKK -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/05/06 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

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

1. Defendants’ August 22, 2005 motion to dismiss, properly re-served on

September 6, 2005, 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: 1/5/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/035

garc2660.46

Case 2:04-cv-02660-LKK -GGH Document 20 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2