alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 10, 2014

t1203 

# Order

Clerk December 10, 2014

149432

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149432

COA: 313115

Wayne CC: 11

- 010648

- FH

PAUL JEFFREY SALERNO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 21.0
 		SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF FEBRUARY 2, 2002

                                        STATE/PROVINCE      COUNTRY
                                        --------------   -------------
CPI Corp.		                         Delaware	   United States

   Consumer Programs, Incorporated		 Missouri	   United States
	d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios
	  Centrics Technology, Inc.		 Delaware	   United States
		d/b/a searsphoto.com
	  Consumer Programs Partner,Inc.     Delaware	   United States
	  CPI Images L.L.C.		       Missouri	   United States
		d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios
		d/b/a Mainstreet Portraits
        CPI Research and Development,
         Inc.                              Delaware	   United States
        myportraits.com, Inc.		       Missouri	   United States

   CPI Corp. Canada		             Ontario	   Canada
	d/b/a Sears Portrait Studios

   CPI Technology Corp.		             Missouri	   United States

   CPI Prints Plus, Inc.		       Delaware	   United States
	 Prints Plus Ridgedale		       Minnesota	   United States
Exhibit 10.8 


 


配偶同意函


Spouse Consent Letter


 


本人,______(配偶姓名)(中国公民,身份证号码:___________________),为_____(持股人姓名)(中国公民,身份证号码:_______________)之合法配偶。


 


The undersigned,
______ (a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: ___________________), is the lawful spouse of _____ (a PRC citizen with PRC Identification
Card No.: ___________________).


 


本人在此无条件并不可撤销地同意______(持股人姓名) 于
2021 年1月7日签署下列文件(下称“交易文件”),
并同意按照以下文件的规定处置_______(持股人姓名) 持有的、并登记在其名下的盛丰物流集团有限公司(“盛丰集团”)的股权:


 


I hereby unconditionally
and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”)
by __________ on January 7, 2021, and the disposal of the equity interests of Shengfeng Logistics Group Co., Ltd. (“Shengfeng
Group”) held by __________ and registered in ____(his or her) name according to the following documents:


 


		(1)	与福建天裕盛丰物流有限公司(下称“独资公司”)及盛丰集团签署的《股权质押协议》;



The Equity Pledge
Agreement entered into with Fujian Tianyu Shengfeng Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “WFOE”) and
Shengfeng Group;


 


		(2)	与独资公司及盛丰集团签署的《认购期权协议》;以及



The Call Option
Agreement entered into with the WFOE and Shengfeng Group; and


 


		(3)	与独资公司及盛丰集团签署的《股东表决权委托协议》。



The Voting Rights
Proxy Agreement entered into with the WFOE and Shengfeng Group.


 


本人承诺不就_______(持股人姓名)
持有的盛丰集团的股权提出任何主张。


I hereby undertake
not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Shengfeng Group which are held by _________.


 


本人进一步确认,_______(持股人姓名)履行交易文件以及进一步修改或终止交易文件并不需要
本人另行授权或同意。


I hereby further
confirm that __________ can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without the authorization
or consent from me.


 


本人承诺将签署一切必要的文件,并采取一切必要的行动,以确保(经不时修
订的)交易文件得到适当履行。


I hereby undertake
to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction Documents (as may
be amended from time to time).


 






     


     


    

 





(配偶同意函签字页/
Signature Page to Spouse Consent Letter)


 


	 	/s/
	 	 
	 	______________ (配偶姓名)
	 	 
	 	_____________ (spouse name)







 


	 	日期:2021年1月7日
  
	 	 
	 	Date :January 7, 2021



 






    2


     


    

 


Schedule of Material Differences


 


One or more person signed the Spousal Consent Letter under this form.
Pursuant to Instruction ii to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant may only file this form as an exhibit with a schedule setting
forth the material details in which the executed agreements differ from this form:


 


	No.	 	Name	 	ID Card	 	Percentage
	1	 	Yongxu Liu	 	[*]	 	 	31.00
	2	 	Zhuangyuan Lin	 	[*]	 	 	2.59
	3	 	Zhongdeng Pan	 	[*]	 	 	2.13
	4	 	Zhiping Yang	 	[*]	 	 	1.58
	5	 	Yufan Chen	 	[*]	 	 	1.00
	6	 	Yelie Song	 	[*]	 	 	0.97
	7	 	Chaoxin Yang	 	[*]	 	 	0.96
	8	 	Daqiu Tang	 	[*]	 	 	0.85
	9	 	Guangsheng Lin	 	[*]	 	 	0.85



 


 


3
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30909 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TONY EARNEST WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-20059

- - - - - - - - - - July 25, 1996 Before KING, JOLLY and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tony Earnest Washington appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that 1) the district court should not have considered his statement to sheriff's deputies at sentencing because the statement was unreliable; 2) the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1), which requires the district court to rule on any unresolved objections to the presentence reportNo. 95-30909 -2- and, alternatively, if the district court complied with Rule 32, the presentence report provided insufficient indicia of reliability to support the district court's findings; and 3) the district court should have required a standard of proof of relevant conduct greater than a preponderance of the evidence. We review for plain error the issues whether Washington's statement to the deputies was unreliable and whether the presentence report provided sufficient indicia of reliability and perceive none. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). Washington failed to object on these grounds at sentencing after the district court amended the presentence report and reduced the base offense level. Washington's contention that the district court did not comply with Rule 32 is unsupported by the record. To the extent that the argument concerning the standard of proof required at sentencing was properly raised in the district court, Washington's sentence did not require a higher burden of proof. See United States v.
Carreon , 11 F.3d 1225, 1240 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Paul H. NECESSARY, Appellant, v. Donald C. GENUNG, as Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Retirement Villas Properties III, L.P., a California limited partnership (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Jessee, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.



|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Mark Jessee                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                
|Mark Jessee Chief Financial Officer of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. its Managing General Partner  November 14, 2003
#### Schelling *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

*Public Utilities Commission*— Motor *transportation companies —Certificate of convenience and, necessity*— JSrror *proceedings to Supreme Court*— Order *refusing certificate not against weight of evidence.*

(No. 18666

Decided December 9, 1924.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. Randolph Walton; Mr. W. 8. Pealer; Mr. J. Á. Ohey,*and *Messrs. Scott & Scott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. 10. O. Grabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. John W. Pricker,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

There is nothing involved in this case except a question of fact. From the findings of the commission we quote:

> “Heretofore this party made application to this commission for a certificate to operate a motor transportation company, carrying passengers over this route. That application was denied, for the reason that the commission had already granted to one W. D. Thomas a certificate for the route, and such decision appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, where it was affirmed. Thereupon the present affidavit was presented, and at the hearing, which became necessary because of the protest filed, there was offered some testimony that the affiant had made some trips between Caldwell and Marietta prior to April 28, 1923. Such trips, however, at *411the most were only casual, as the affiant could not have been actually operating over this route in regular service between these points on and prior to April 28, 1923, as state highway No. 8 was not open for travel along this route until long after that date.

> “The commission, being fully advised in the premises, therefore finds that the statements contained in said affidavit are untrue.”

The evidence outside of the testimony of the plaintiff in error is inconclusive and in sharp conflict. The commission finds the evidence of plaintiff in error in conflict with the physical facts which existed over the route. The character of the evidence is such that to arrive at the actual facts requires a determination of which witnesses were speaking the truth and which were not. The commission, with the witnesses before it, determined the facts against plaintiff in error, and this court from the record is not able to say that the finding is against the weight of the evidence.

The finding of the commission is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias. Allen, and Conn, JJ., concur.
# C_2012180EN.01001301.xml

| 21.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/13

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

2012/C 180/08

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AD/233/12 — Croatian language (HR) translators (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/233/12 — Croatian language (HR) translators (AD 5)

| | EPSO/AD/234/12 — Interpreters (AD 5/AD 7) for Croatian language (HR) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/234/12 — Interpreters (AD 5/AD 7) for Croatian language (HR)

| | EPSO/AD/235/12 — Croatian language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/235/12 — Croatian language (HR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

The competition notices are published in Official Journal C 180 A of 21 June 2012 in English, French and German only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---
# C_2012003EN.01000201.xml

| 6.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 January 2012

2012/C 3/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2832 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 98,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4360 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82675 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8461 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2187 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6825 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,914 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 320,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6983 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5054 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3390 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4185 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2491 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3039 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9647 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6399 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6562 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 482,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5038 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0980 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5330 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 800,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0389 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,579 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,0830 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,588 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3551 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6040 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,9130 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2832

JPY

Japanese yen

98,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4360

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82675

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8461

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2187

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6825

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,914

HUF

Hungarian forint

320,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6983

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5054

RON

Romanian leu

4,3390

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4185

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2491

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3039

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9647

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6399

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6562

KRW

South Korean won

1 482,77

ZAR

South African rand

10,5038

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0980

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5330

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 800,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0389

PHP

Philippine peso

56,579

RUB

Russian rouble

41,0830

THB

Thai baht

40,588

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3551

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6040

INR

Indian rupee

67,9130

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS THE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APAC
CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-Q FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS
ENDED OCTOBER 1, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                          38,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,855
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,373
<PP&E>                                         138,382
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,656
<BONDS>                                         90,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           497
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,087
<SALES>                                        350,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,269
<CGS>                                          268,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  322,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,179
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,107
<DISCONTINUED>                                     115
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,222
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24


</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE DANIEL GOM EZ, Pe titioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-74039 Age n c y No. A070-943-998 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Da nie l Gom e z , a

native and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe t itions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ions for re lie f from re m o va l. 

# FIL ED AUG 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. In his ope ning brie f, Gom e zdoe s not ra i se , a nd the re fore ha s wa ive d, a ny c ha lle nge to thea ge nc y ’ s de te rm inations tha t he is re m o va

b l e , a n d tha t he fa ile d to de m onstra

te e ligibility

for re lie f from

re m ova l. Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (a pe titione r wa ive s a

n issueby fa iling to raise it in the ope ning brie f). To the e xte nt Gom e zc onte nds he is e ligible for prose c utoria l disc re tion, we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r his c onte ntion. Se eVilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Gom e z ’ s une xha uste d c onte ntion re ga

rding his c ounse l in c rim ina l proc e e dings. Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). W e grant thegove rnm e nt’ s m o tion to strike ne w e vide nc e (Doc ke t

Entry No. 33). Se eDe nt v . Holde r , 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla i ning sta nda rd for re v i e w of out-of-re c ord e vide nc e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 4 0 3 9 2
#### James B. McDONOUGH, Jr., as Administrator C. T. C. v. RUDISILL.

No. 39331.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 229 So.2d 268.
Exhibit 23





                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




The Board of Directors
SMTEK International, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-02969 and 333-31349) and the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74400, 333-08689, 333-72139, 333-44612, 333-49954 and 333-
49956) of SMTEK International, Inc. of our report dated August 10, 2001,
except as to the second paragraph of Note 5 which is as of September 24,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SMTEK International,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and stockholders' equity
and comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 2001, which report appears in the SMTEK International,
Inc. 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
September 24, 2001
N OTE : This order is nonprecedentia l. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________
THE ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL GENETICS, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, THE COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS, HAIG KAZAZIAN, MD, ARUPA GANGULY, PHD, WENDY CHUNG, MD, PHD, HARRY OSTRER, MD, DAVID LEDBETTER, PHD, STEPHEN WARREN, PHD, ELLEN MATLOFF, M.S., ELSA REICH, M.S., BREAST CANCER ACTION, BOSTON WOMEN’S HEALTH BOOK COLLECTIVE, LISBETH CERIANI, RUNI LIMARY, GENAE GIRARD, PATRICE FORTUNE, VICKY THOMASON, AND KATHLEEN RAKER, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant,

and MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., Defendant-Appellant,ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR v. PTO 2

and LORRIS BETZ, ROGER BOYER, JACK BRITTAIN, ARNOLD B. COMBE, RAYMOND GESTELAND, JAMES U. JENSEN, JOHN KENDALL MORRIS, THOMAS PARKS, DAVID W. PERSHING, AND MICHAEL K. YOUNG, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________
2010-1406

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in case no. 09-CV-4515, Senior Judge Robert W. Sweet.

__________________________
O R D E R

__________________________ On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012). Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The court’s opinion of July 29, 2011, is vacated, the mandate of this court issued on September 23, 2011, is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR v. PTO 3

(2) The parties are requested to file simultaneous supplemental briefs, not exceeding 20 pages, not later than June 15, 2012, addressing the following issue: What is the applicability of the Su preme Court’s decision in Mayo to Myriad’s isolated DNA claims and to method claim 20 of the ’282 patent? (3) An original and eleven copies of supplemental briefs shall be filed, and two copies of each brief shall be served on opposing counsel. (4) Briefs of amici curiae will be entertained, limited to 15 pages and due not later than June 15, 2012, and any such amicus briefs may be f iled without consent and leave of court but otherwise must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Federal Circuit Rule 29. The United States is expressly invited to file an amicus brief. (5) Oral argument will be he ld at 10:00 a.m. on July 20, 2012.

F OR T HE C OURT

April 30, 2012 Date /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Gregory A. Castanias, Esq. Christopher A. Hansen, Esq.