alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, INC.

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 3
1

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. 

(collectively “Defendants”) seek foreign discovery from third party witnesses residing in Canada.

Defendants have attached an Appendix with a Letter of Request which includes Document 

Requests and Deposition Topics. Defendants respectfully request that the Court execute the Letter 

of Request attached as Appendix D. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the 

Letter of Request, the Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court’s signature under the seal of this 

Court, and return the original signed and sealed executed Letter, and two certified copies of the 

signed and sealed executed Letters, to Defendants’ counsel, Barry K. Shelton, for delivery to the

proper authority.

Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, indicated 

that it reserves the right to serve its own foreign discovery in the future.

Dated: November 6, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 6, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 45 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 3
ORDER **PAGE 1**  **OF 1**  **PAGES**

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 SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF MONTANA**  Cause No. DA 22

- 0239

CITY OF BILLINGS ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. MERCEDES A. BENNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

____________________________________________________ __________________ **ORDER**

Upon consideration of Defendant ’s counsel’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s counsel is granted an extension of tim e to and including J uly 10 th , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant ’s O pening B rief on appeal.

_____________________________________

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 1 2023

06/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0239
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5364 

To suspend temporarily the duty on placebos to be used in clinical trials 

for the drug ASKP1240. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. DOLD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on placebos to be used 

in clinical trials for the drug ASKP1240. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLACEBOS TO BE USED IN CLINICAL TRIALS 

4 FOR THE DRUG ASKP1240. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5364 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Placebos, composed of sodium L-glumate, D-sorbitol, and polysorbate 80, 

to be used in clinical trials 

for the drug ASKP1240 

(provided for in subheading 3824.90.92) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

PROVEN NETWORKS, LLC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NETAPP, INC.,

Defendant. 

Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00369-ADA, WA:20-MC02959-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for 

good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines: 

Original 

Date

Amended Date Item

May 9, 

2022 

 May 23, 2022 Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline. 

June 6, 

2022 

 June 20, 2022 Deadline for Responses to Dispositive and Daubert motions 

June 27, 

2022 

 July 11, 2022 Deadline for Replies to Dispositive and Daubert motions 

August 4, 

2022 

 August 18, 2022 Proposed hearing date for dispositive and Daubert motions. 

It is SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED this 5th day of May, 2022. 

________________________________ 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00369-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5455 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5455

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Violet 23.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Violet 23.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT VIOLET 23.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Pigment Violet 23   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (CAS No. 6358-30-                                                  31/2015.......
                        1) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3204.17.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STOLL OIL REFINING CO. v. FLYNN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1954.

C. A. Thornton, and James S. Carroll, Lexington, for appellant.

Marshall A. Dawson, Versailles, William H. Miller, Raymond C. Cravens, Lexington, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

. This is a- motion for an appeal from a judgment of $2,000 - for -personal injuries suffered by plaintiff. He was burned in-a flash fire-around a -gasoline pump which started while he was repairing it. The defendant -contends it was entitled to a directed verdict. We think the contention is sustainable on-two grounds, even assuming appellee to have been an employee, about which there is some doubt;

*712We have been unable to find wherein the defendant was negligent, although plaintiff claims he was furnished an unsafe place to work. The facts show plaintiff was employed on an hourly basis to repair a gasoline pump at one of the stations controlled by defendant. According to plaintiff’s testimony he was instructed to repair the switch and to put the pump in good working order. On. cross-examination the following question was asked concerning the instructions given by defendant’s agent, and the following answer was made:

> “He told you to go down there and check the pump for leaks and put it in good working order?”

> “That’s right. I went down there and saw this condition and came back and told him it needed a switch.”

It was further testified by plaintiff that he knew this pump, as any other such pump, was dangerous to work on.

The accident was caused when an electrical arc on the new switch being installed by the plaintiff ignited gasoline fumes around the pump. There is no showing defendant had better knowledge of the condition at the pump than did the plaintiff. While ordinarily an employer is required to furnish his employee a safe place to work, the rule does not apply where the employee is performing work to make a dangerous place safe, or where the work itself makes the place obviously dangerous. Skinner v. Smith, Ky.1953, 255 S.W.2d 621.

The only possible negligence in this case on the part of defendant would have been the failure to warn plaintiff of the possibility of gasoline fumes around a leaking gasoline pump. Since the plaintiff was 'bound to know and admitted the danger incident to such a condition, the defendant was not guilty of negligence in failing to warn the plaintiff of it. Because no negligence was shown, the trial court should ■have directed a verdict for the defendant.

What we have just said likewise demonstrates that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury he received. Since he appreciated the danger incident to the repair of the pump and his own actions caused the accident, he must be held to have assumed the risk of the possible consequences. See Poole v. Lutz & Schmidt, Inc., 273 Ky. 586, 117 S.W.2d 575. A verdict should have been directed for defendant on this ground also.

The motion for an appeal is sustained, and the judgment is reversed for consistent proceedings.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Deborah Laufer, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SATISHCHANDRA PATEL, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00386-

ADA-JCM

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL [FRCP 41(A)] AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby notifies this Court 

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) that this action is dismissed with prejudice as 

to all claims, causes of action, and parties, with each party bearing that party’s 

own attorney’s fees and costs.

Dated: June 2, 2020 

/s/ Tristan W. Gillespie

Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq.

THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.

5150 Cottage Farm Rd.

Johns Creek, GA 30022

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

DEBORAH LAUFER

Case 6:20-cv-00386-ADA-JCM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), IT IS ORDERED THAT 

THIS ACTION BE, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to 

all claims, causes of action, and parties, with each party bearing that party’s own 

attorney’s fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

Dated: June 2, 2020

 ___________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00386-ADA-JCM Document 8 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Radium Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shane Whittle, the President, Secretary and Director (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: July 28, 2004

Shane Whittle

_________________________
President, Secretary and Director 
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION Pursuant
    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b)
    of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant
    to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b)
    of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
    officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the Company),
    hereby certifies that: The
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007 (the
    Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:
August 9, 2007
/s/ John W.
  TietjenName:
John W.
  TietjenTitle:    Executive
  Vice President and Chief
  Financial Officer The
    foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
    of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part
    of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 46
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40470

Summary Calendar

 

JERRY DON WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JASON HINDS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(96-CV-517)

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

November 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Don Wilson, Texas state prisoner #

590690, appeals a jury verdict in favor of prison guard Jason Hinds

in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an

excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Wilson asserts that counsel for Hinds acted in the case before

the district court granted his motion to appear pro hac vice, that

the district court erred in allowing the written testimony of

witness Robert Garza rather than requiring Garza to appear at

trial, and that the district court erred in not allowing him to use
2

peremptory challenges or allowing him to object to the jury.

Wilson did not raise objections to these three alleged errors in

the district court and review is limited to plain error. Highland

Ins. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 27 F.3d 1027,

1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994)). Wilson has not shown clear or obvious

error affecting his substantial rights with respect to any of these

issues.

Wilson asserts that the district court erred by not allowing

the affidavits of inmates into evidence. Wilson does not cite to

the record or even state with specificity which affidavits were not

admitted. Accordingly, this issue is deemed abandoned on appeal.

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748

(5th Cir. 1987). 

 Wilson asserts that the district court erred by instructing the

jury regarding qualified immunity because all of the evidence

showed that Hinds acted beyond the scope of his authority and that

there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Hinds did

not use excessive force. Wilson’s assertions that Officer Hinds

was lying on the stand is not sufficient to overturn the jury’s

credibility decisions and ultimate factual determination that Hinds

did not use excessive force. Baltazor v. Holmes, 162 F.3d 368, 373

(5th Cir. 1998). Officer Hinds’s testimony was also sufficient to

support the instruction on qualified immunity; however, any error

in the instruction would be harmless because the jury did not reach

the issue of qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-474-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Brian M. Koide of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, 

PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Koide hereby requests that all notices required to be 

given, and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause, be copied 

to and served upon him.

Dated: November 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide 

Virginia Bar No. 46,329

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (703) 565-2852

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950 

brian@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 40 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on November 3, 2020.

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 40 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 13.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report of Randgold Resources Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Mark Bristow, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 78 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 2Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 78 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOWS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000092108
<NAME> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        2,756
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             845
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                            61
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      68
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,730
<COMMON>                                           835
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                497
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         22
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               940
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,420
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    3,730
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,050
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               132
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,716
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,848
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            202
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   5
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     207
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            56
<NET-INCOME>                                       151
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          1
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      150
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           100
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           41
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             588
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0






</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Whitestone REIT (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A, Amendment No. 1, for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David K. Holeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      David K. HolemanDavid
      K. HolemanChief
      Financial Officer





Dated
this 29th day of April, 2008
EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SAN ANTONIO AQUARIUM, LLC d/b/a §

SAN ANTONIO AQUARIUM, §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CASE NO. 5:20-cv-00646

§

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE §

COMPANY, §

§

 Defendant. §

EXHIBIT A

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

No. Document

A Index of Exhibits

B State Court Case Docket

C All process, pleadings, orders, and other papers or exhibits of 

every kind, now on file in the State Court Case: i.e., Plaintiff’s 

Original Petition, Request for Service and Process, Civil Case 

Information Sheet, Jury Fee Payment, Summons Fee Payment, 

Summons, and Atain’s Original Answer

D List of Counsel of Record

Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 1-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 1
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 10 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 64 Filed 11/09/20 Page 11 of 11