alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2339

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Luis C. Bueno-Espinoza, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2001

Filed: March 9, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Luis C. Bueno-Espinoza contends the government

violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing timely to disclose his

codefendant's plea agreement, and 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) by entering into the plea

agreement with the same codefendant in exchange for his testimony. Like the district

court, we reject both arguments. Bueno-Espinoza has not shown how earlier disclosure

of the plea agreement would have materially affected the outcome of his case, see

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674, 682 (1985), and the government does not
-2-

violate § 201(c)(2) by treating codefendants with leniency in exchange for their

testimony, see United State v. Albanese, 195 F.3d 389, 394 (8th Cir. 1999) (Eighth

Circuit has "long history" of allowing government to compensate witnesses for their

participation in criminal investigations).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision

not to grant Bueno-Espinoza a downward departure. See United States v. Saelee, 123

F.3d 1024, 1025 (8th Cir. 1997) (discretionary decision not to depart from Guidelines

is unreviewable absent unconstitutional motive or legally erroneous determination that

court lacked authority to consider mitigating factor).

We affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A0 67 2 . RODOLFO TARANGO v . THELMA DI LLARD GRAY.

Ro d ol fo Taran g o , wh i l e rep res en t ed b y t h e l aw fi rm o f Farah an d Farah

, s u ed
Th el m a Di l l ard Gray

. Taran g o v ol u n t a r i l y d i s m i s sed t h at act i o n

. A t t orn ey Kev in
El wel l l eft Farah an d Farah an d , act i n g as s ol e co u n sel fo r Taran g o , fi l ed a ren ewal

a c t i o n ag ai n s t Gray

. Farah an d Farah fi l ed an at t o rn ey l i en i n t he cas e fo r s erv i c e s

ren d ered o n b eh al f o f Taran g o, an d T aran go m o v ed t o can cel t h e at to rn ey li en fi l ed
b y Farah an d Farah

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i on , an d Taran g o fi l ed t h i s d i rect

ap p eal . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Th e u n d erl y i n g cas e rem ai n s p en d i n g i n t he t ri al co u rt , an d i t i s ap p aren t fro m

t h e face o f t h e o rd er t h at i t i s no t a fi n al ju d g m en t wi t h i n th e m ean in g o f O CGA § 5

- 6 -3 4 (a). Becau s e t h e o r d e r i s i n t erl o cu t o ry , T aran g o was req u i red t o fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal p ro ced u res o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). Taran g o’ s fai l u re t o fo l l o w

t h es e pro ced u res dep ri v es t h i s Co u rt o f ju ri s di ct i o n t o co ns i d er t h e ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/06/2015 January 06, 2015
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURTOFCRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 

## 5/21/2015 t'i>J 

# LOPEZ, DWAYNEKEITH Tr|dfc Nb^lJTli-<121,82-CR(1) WR-83,335-01 On this day, the application fo%i:0.7 Writ.of Habeas Corpus has been received andpresented to theCourt. *' ..•••7" %;. 

## "~"^'" Abel Acosta, Clerk c/>

DWAYNE KEITH LOPEZ TDC # 2992532 ZIP 78701 <& 02 1fV * 0001401623 MAY. 28. 2015
#### John O. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27336.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1955.

W. V. Dunnam, Jr., Waco, for appellant.

Tom Moore, Jr., Crim. Dist. Atty., Martin D. Eichelberger, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at 15 days in jail and a fine of $50.

In view of our disposition of the case, the state’s evidence need not be set out.

Appellant testified that he was not drunk; that he did not use intoxicants in any form and had never taken a drink, and such testimony was supported by the testimony of his mother and two of his sisters.

E. C. Goodman, a witness for the appellant, testified that he had seen appellant suffering from epilepsy on several occasions.

By Bill of Exception No. 4, appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Blackshear to testify that “The defendant never made the statement to me that he suffered from epilepsy,” over his objection that the same was an attempt to use the silence of the defendant while under arrest as evidence against him.

The bill certifies that appellant was under arrest at all times when in Officer Black-shear’s presence. The bill further certifies that it was appellant’s defense, which was supported by the evidence, that appellant suffered an attack o.f epilepsy at the time *712and place in question and that he was not intoxicated.

The above testimony should not have been admitted because it permitted the jury to consider appellant’s silence while under arrest as evidence of guilt. Boggess v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 466, 257 S.W.2d 111.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                                  
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K into Hadco Corporation's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8, File No. 33-2915, File No. 33-12555, File
No. 33-24975, File No. 33-24976, File No. 33-40616, File No. 33-48288, File No.
333-11485 and File No. 333-22377.


                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
January 15, 1998
Opinion issued October 10 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00448
- CV

——————————— IN RE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Infrastructure Services, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s April 29, 2019 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. 1 We deny the petition and lift the s tay imposed by our July 23, 2019 order.

1 The underlying case is Infrastructure Services, Inc. v. Jamail’s Auto & Truck Services, Inc. , cause number 2017

- 82253, pending in the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Scot Dollinger presiding.2 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau

.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Craig A. Tooman, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

|               |  |                                                                                                          | 
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|March 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Craig A. Tooman                                                                                      | 
|               |  |                                                                                                          | 
|               |  | Craig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President, Financeand Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) | 



---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS HJIJ 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SCHUMAN AVIATION, LTD 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0778 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on April 22 and 23, 2013, inclusive, in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii 

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 968501. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. 

and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on or before 

5:00p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper 

pleading(s). Pleadings2 may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal 

service3

. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 As of the date of this notice a courtroom has not been assigned. Parties should check the Court Calendar 

the day of the hearing for the exact courtroom. The parties may also check with the Clerk's Office. 

2 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for 

viewing at b.!JP-;!fw.w.~,r..?gy1gf.!QIJ§.$.Q.Y.:.. For additional information see: b.t!P../!4m.~-J!.QtgQY... . 3 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

http:llwww.(aa.gov/aboutloffice orglheadquarters oflices!agclpol adjudicationlagc400/civil penalty/; see 

also: http:l!ecft.gpoaccess.gov/cgilt!textltext-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=lec(rbrowse/Title 14/14tab 02. tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9F1RAN-F AA database. For additional 

information, see the Web site. 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0778 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration· 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Christopher D. Ferrara, Respondent's Counsel 

841 Bishop Street, Suite 1628 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

FAX: 808-537-4576 

President 

Schuman Aviation, Ltd. 

130 Iolana Place 

Honolulu, HI 96819 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40825

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO MEZA BALLEZA, also known as

Cipriano Acosta-Avalos,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-52-ALL 

--------------------

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo Meza Balleza appeals his sentence imposed following

his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation after having

been convicted of an aggravated felony. He was sentenced to 77

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He

argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), his sentence is invalid because the district court

applied the Sentencing Guidelines as if they were mandatory. We

review for plain error. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
No. 04-40825

-2-

513, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31,

2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407

F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed

(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). 

Balleza is unable to establish plain error with regard to

his Booker claim because he cannot establish that being sentenced

under a mandatory Guidelines scheme affected his substantial

rights. The record does not indicate that the district court

“would have reached a significantly different result” under a

sentencing scheme in which the Guidelines were advisory only. 

See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-22; Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at

733-34; United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th

Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-

5297). 

Balleza also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are

unconstitutional. He acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible

Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). This issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit,

231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 172 

To provide that no automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress 

shall be made in the year following a fiscal year in which there is 

a Federal budget deficit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that no automatic pay adjustment for Members 

of Congress shall be made in the year following a fiscal 

year in which there is a Federal budget deficit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deficit Accountability 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EFFECT OF A BUDGET DEFICIT. 

7 Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act 

8 of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 172 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘Subject to 

2 subparagraph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to sub3 paragraph (B) and paragraph (3),’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) An adjustment under paragraph (2) otherwise 

6 scheduled to take effect in a calendar year shall not be 

7 made if, as determined by the Office of Management and 

8 Budget, there was a deficit (as defined by section 3 of 

9 the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 

10 of 1974) in the preceding fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Order entered May 2 8 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00613 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M .A.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417 - 51726 - 2011 

### O R DER We GRANT appellant’s May 27, 2015 unopposed motion to extend time to file response brief to appellee/cross

- appellant’s brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 11, 2015
. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### FRANK A. IANNOTTI v. AMPHENOL/SPECTRA-STRIP, INC., ET AL.

(14784)

O’Connell, Heiman and Schaller, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 9

decision released January 30, 1996

*Scott Wilson Williams*and *James D. Moran, Jr.,*filed a brief for the appellants (defendants).

*Robert F. Carter*filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

*919PER CURIAM.

The decision of the workers’ compensation review board is affirmed.
#### Elias NARVAIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28815.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on .appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated upon a public highway, with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and three days in jail.

Appellant’s intoxication was a disputed issue, under the facts.

We have concluded that the certificate of error by the trial court, as set out in Bill of Exception No. 6, requires a reversal of this conviction.

The certificate reads as follows:

> “Be it remembered that on the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause The Court committed a material error calculated to injure the rights of the Defendant in that the Court qualified Miss Larlu Hays, a member of the jury panel, as a householder when in fact she is a single woman, having never been married, who lives alone in a rented house in Lamesa, Texas, who owns no real property in the State of Texas, who has no dependents, and who is not the head of a household.”

In connection therewith, the bill of exception contains this further certificate, viz.:

> “Be it remembered that the Defendant was forced to exercised his last peremptory challenge on this member of the panel, and was then forced to accept a juror objectionable to this Defendant, to-wit: Mr. Ed Hatch, a former Deputy Sheriff and a former peace officer with many years service, which juror was later elected foreman of the jury, and which juror was materially harmful to this Defendant * *

Under such certificate there is no escape from the conclusion that the trial court has certified that he fell into error in holding the prospective juror to be qualified and that such error was calculated to and did injure the appellant.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
EXHIBIT 99.4

I, Emanuel Chirico, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual 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 we have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe 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 change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 financialreporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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'sinternal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  April 7, 2004
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N
I n th e Matte r

of : Federa l Expres s Corporatio n FA A Docke t No . CP10NM000 6 FA A Cas e No . 2009NM70005 6 DM S No . FAA-2010-079 0 Judge : Richar dC
. Goodwi n Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin : NOTIC EO FAPPEARANC E " a f> J oo o Pleas e ente r

th e appearanc e o f

Glen nP . Wicks an dRoncevert D . Almon da s attqeiey^ ^ I recor dfor Federa l Expres s Corporation , Responden t i nth e above-reference daction
. Servic e o f al l paper s b y U.S
. Mail , expedite dcourie r service , an dpersona l delivery shoul db e addresse da s follows : Glen n P . Wick s Roncevert

D . Almon d Th e Wicks Group , PLL C 121 5 l?' ^ Street , N W Sumne r Annex , FourthFloo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Tel : (202 ) 457-779 0 Fax : (202 ) 457-779 9

-t h Date dthi s 25' " day o f

April , 2011
. 

# RECEIVE D AP R 2 6 20t l 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T -efen hP . Wick s Roncevert

D . Almon d Th e Wick s Group , PLL C 121 5 17"^ Street , N W Sumne r Armex , FourthFloo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Tel : (202 ) 457-779 0 Fax : (202 ) 457-779 9 Counse l fo r

Responden tCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g documen t

ha s bee nsen t

vi afacsimil e an dexpedite d courie r servic e to : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Fax:(202)493-514 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , R mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-213 9 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6 Mr . Scott Morris , Attorne y Mr . Kyl e Lomazow , Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Coimse l (ANM-7 ) 160 1 Lin dAve. , S.W
. Renton , WA 9805 7 Tel : (425 ) 227-141 7 Fax:(425)227-100 7 On e (1 ) cop y an dorigina l

On e (1 ) cop y

On e (1 ) cop y

-t h Date dthi s 25' " day o f

April , 2011 ,

/ert D . Almon d Th e Wick s Group , PLL C 121 5 17 * Street , NW Sumne r Annex , Fourt

hFloo r Washington , D C 2003 6 Tel : (202 ) 457-779 0 Fax : (202 ) 457-779 9 Counse l for

Responden t