alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4306 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property, 

qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2009 

Mr. MEEK of Florida (for himself, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CROWLEY, 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, and Mr. HERGER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold 

improvement property, qualified restaurant property, and 

qualified retail improvement property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF 

4 QUALIFED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENT PROP5 ERTY AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES 

6 OF DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (iv) of section 

8 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4306 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘placed in service before January 1, 

2 2010’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

5 December 31, 2009. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF 

7 QUALIFED RESTAURANT PROPERTY AS 15- 

8 YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRE9 CIATION DEDUCTION. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (v) of section 168(e)(3)(E) 

11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik12 ing ‘‘placed in service before January 1, 2010’’. 

13 (b) TREATMENT TO INCLUDE NEW CONSTRUC14 TION.—Clause (i) of section 168(e)(7)(A) of such Code is 

15 amended by striking ‘‘, and before January 1, 2010’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

18 December 31, 2009. 

19 SEC. 3. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF 

20 QUALIFED RETAIL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY 

21 AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF 

22 DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ix) of section 

24 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

25 amended by striking ‘‘, and before January 1, 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4306 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 1 of 27 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 2 of 27 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 3 of 27 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 4 of 27 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 5 of 27 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 6 of 27 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 7 of 27 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 8 of 27 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 9 of 27 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 10 of 27 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 11 of 27 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 12 of 27 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 13 of 27 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 14 of 27 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 15 of 27 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 16 of 27 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 17 of 27 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 18 of 27 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 19 of 27 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 20 of 27 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 21 of 27 PAGEID #: 21
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 22 of 27 PAGEID #: 22
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 23 of 27 PAGEID #: 23
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 24 of 27 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 25 of 27 PAGEID #: 25
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 26 of 27 PAGEID #: 26
Case: 3:17-mj-00551-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 27 of 27 PAGEID #: 27
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50635 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUCIO SANCHEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-125-1-AML

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Lucio SanchezMendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
sakonnetconsent1.htm


  
    Exhihit 4.10(a)


      The Bank
of Nova Scotia Asia Ltd

      1 Raffles
Quay

      #20-01
North Tower

      One
Raffles Quay Singapore 048583

      Tel: (65)
6305-8388

      Fax: (65)
6534-7969

      Co.
Registration No. 197902220M

      


      12 May
2010

      To:           Sakonnet
Shipping Ltd

      3rd Floor,
Par La Ville Place

      14 Par La Ville Road

      Hamilton HM 08

      Bermuda

      


      (the
“Borrower”)

      


      Fax no.:
+1-401-410-1122/+44 1635-255-502

      


      Attention:
Mr. Michael Hudner/Mr. Anthony Dalzell

      


      


      


      Dear
Sirs,

      


      
        	
                (i)  

              	
                Loan
      Agreement dated 24 January 2007 made between the Borrower and the Bank of
      Nova Scotia Asia Limited (the “Bank”) (the “Loan Agreement”) in respect of
      a  loan facility of up to US$27,300,000 to part finance the
      acquisition of m.v.”Sakonnet” (the “ship”);
and

              


      

      


      
        	
                (ii)  

              	
                Corporate
      Guarantee dated 24 January 2007 made between B+H Ocean Carriers Ltd. (the
      “Corporate Guarantor”) and the Bank (the “Corporate
      Guarantee”).

              


      

      


      Words and
expressions defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same meanings when used
herein.

      


      This
letter is an amendment to the Bank’s letter dated 15 April 2010 (attached
herein) in relation to financial covenant amendments requested by the Corporate
Guarantor and their effective date, the Bank confirms that:

      


      
        	
                (a)  

              	
                The
      amendments, as requested and described in the Corporate Guarantor’s letter
      dated 25 January 2010, to the following Financial Covenants as set out in
      clause 5.3.2 of the Corporate Guarantee became effective as at 31 December
      2009 up to maturity of the subject facility: (i) Minimum [Value Adjusted]
      Equity Ratio, (ii) Minimum Value Adjusted Equity, (iii) Positive Working
      Capital and (iv) Cash and Cash
Equivalents.

              


      

      


      For the
avoidance of doubt, except as set out herein, the Bank has not granted a waiver
of any breach or any Events of Default whatsoever which may be existing or may
occur under the Loan Agreement or the Corporate Guarantee. All the Banks’ rights
are herby reserved, and nothing herein is to be construed as a waiver of the
same.

      


      Yours
Faithfully,

      


      s/________________

      For and
on behalf of

      The
Bank of Nova Scotia Asia Limited

      (in its
capacity as the Bank)

      


      We hereby
agree to the terms and conditions and all other contents of this
letter

      


      


      s/________________

      Signed
for and on behalf of

      Sakonnet
Shipping Ltd

      Name:

      Title:

      


      


      s/________________

      Signed
for and on behalf of

      B+H
Ocean Carriers Ltd

      Name:

      Title:
ex10-1.htm


 

Ex. 10.1

BioLargo, Inc.

Engagement Extension Agreement

 

September 30, 2015

 

This Engagement Extension Agreement (the “Extension”) references the Engagement Agreement and Scope Letter dated February 1, 2008 (“2008 Agreement”) by and between CFO 911 Corporation (the “Advisor)” and BioLargo, Inc. (the “Company”), and written extensions to the Agreement (the “Prior Extensions”), pursuant to which Charles K. Dargan II has been serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer. The parties desire to extend the terms of the prior agreements for a period of one year, pursuant to the terms of this Extension. The 2008 Agreement, the Prior Extensions and this Extension are collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement”.

 

Except as expressly amended or modified herein, all terms and conditions set forth in the 2008 Agreement and Prior Extensions are incorporated herein by this reference, and continue to be in full force and effect. The parties acknowledge and confirm that Mr. Dargan has been serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, and continues to do so through today’s date. Retroactively effective as of February 1, 2015, the Advisor and the Company hereby agree to extend the Term of the engagement as set forth in the 2008 Agreement to expire September 30, 2016 (the “Extended Term”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice. Upon the expiration of this Agreement on September 30, 2016, unless this agreement has been terminated, Advisor shall continue to serve as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer until new terms are agreed upon. 

 

All terms regarding compensation to the Advisor are amended and replaced by the following. During the Extended Term, the Advisor shall receive the compensation as set forth in this Extension. The Company shall issue to Charles K. Dargan II an option (the “Option”) to purchase 300,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, pursuant to the Company’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. The Option shall vest over a period of 12 months, with 120,000 shares having vested as of September 30, 2015, and the remaining shares to vest monthly beginning October 1, 2015, and each month thereafter, 15,000 each month, so long as this Agreement is in full force and effect. The Option shall be exercisable at $0.57 per share, and shall expire September 30, 2025.

 

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 

 

	
CFO 911 CORPORATION
	
 
	
BioLargo, Inc.
	
 

	
8055 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 405
	
 
	
3500 W. Garry Ave.
	
 

	
Playa del Rey, CA 90232
	
 
	
Santa Ana, CA 92704 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By: 
	
/S/CHARLES K. DARGAN II
	
 
	
By:
	
/S/DENNIS P. CALVERT
	
 

	
Name:
	
Mr. Charles K. Dargan II
	
 
	
Name:
	
Mr. Dennis P. Calvert
	
 

	
Title:
	
Chief Executive Officer
	
 
	
Title:
	
President
	
 

	
Date Signed: Sept 30, 2015
	
 
	
Date Signed: Sept 30, 2015
March 23, 2012Colleen McKaughan

Associate Director, Air DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street

Air-i

San Francisco, CA 94105SUBJECT: Clarification ofthe 1994 NSRJPSD SIP submittal

Dear Ms. McKaughan:Following up on our phone conversation, this letter confirms our clarifications concerningArizona’s August 15, J994 submittal of a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) entitled

“New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSRIPSD) Program for Major

Sources and Major Modifications and New Source Review (NSR) for Minor Sources.”On August 15, 1994, Arizona submitted a SIP revision entitled “New Source Review andPrevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) Program for Major Sources and Major

Modifications and New Source Review (NSR) for Minor Sources” (“1994 NSRIPSD SIP”).

Attachment 6 ofthis submittal includes a rule at Section 220, Chapter 2, Title 18 of the ArizonaAdministrative Code (Ri8-2-220) (“Air pollution emergency episodes”), which addresses the

requirement in CAA section ii 0(a)(2)(G) regarding air pollution emergency episodes. Wesubmit this letter to clarify that we intend for the air pollution emergency episode rule containedwithin the 1994 NSRIPSD SIP submittal as Attachment 6 (Ri 8-2-220) to address the

requirements of CAA 11 0(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

,2erel

En assey, DirectorAl uality Division

Southern Regional Office

400 West Congress Street • SuIte 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733

Printed on recycled paper
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 22189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09019]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than May 15, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Horizon Bancorp, Michigan City, Indiana; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of Peoples Bancorp, and indirectly acquire Peoples 
Federal Savings Bank of DeKalb County, both in Auburn, Indiana, and 
thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 
225.28 (b)(4)(ii).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 15, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-09019 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN, 

 Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-80 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

- vs - Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, Warren Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent. : 

RECOMMITTAL ORDER 

 

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 32) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 31). 

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be 

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions to file a second supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making 

recommendations based on that analysis. 

February 23, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
CLD-184 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-3755

___________

PAUL J. BISHOP,

Appellant

v.

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;

THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-03372)

District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 19, 2018

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, Jr., and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 6, 2018)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Pro se appellant Paul J. Bishop appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing 

his complaint sua sponte on the grounds that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). We will dismiss the appeal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it has no arguable basis in law or fact.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, who are already familiar with this case, 

we include only those facts necessary to reach our conclusion.

In 2015, Bishop filed a Title VII complaint against the United States Department 

of Agriculture. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss, and Bishop appealed. 

This Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See Bishop v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Agric., ___ F. App’x ___, 2018 WL 798474 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018, No. 17-2566) (per 

curiam).

In 2017, Bishop filed a nearly identical complaint in the District Court. The 

District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as frivolous and for failure to state a 

claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This appeal followed.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires us to dismiss an appeal that 

lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir. 

2006) (per curiam) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
3

We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the suit on the basis that it repeats 

the exact same claims the District Court and this Court have previously rejected. See

Bishop, 2018 WL 798474 at *2. Bishop provided no new argument in the District Court 

why his claims had merit, and has not made any such argument on appeal. Thus,

Bishop’s appeal lacks arguable merit, and we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
#### Drummond v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90824;

Court of Appeals No. 132807.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Calvin L. Kantonen, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of First American Scientific 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 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report.

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 6th day of October, 2003.



| | /s/ Calvin L. Kantonen
Calvin L. Kantonen
Principal Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:17 PO 239
Plaintiff, 3
vs. : MICHAEL J. NEWMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
SCOTT RIGGS : GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
DISMISSAL
Defendant.

Now comes the United States, by and through counsel, and respectfillly requests the
Court dismiss the above captioned case.

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

(- / auto 5 United States Attorney

s/Elizabeth R. Rabe

MW ELIZABETH R. RABE (NY 4698072)
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff
G | CG | / 4 200 West Second Street, Suite 600
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Office: (937) 225-2910
Elizabeth.Rabe@usdoj.gov

'E OF SERVIC.

I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed on 04 September 2018 and
Defense Counsel of Record will be notified of this Motion through CM/ECF.

s/Elizabeth R. Rabe

ELIZABETH R. RABE (NY 4698072)
Assistant United States Attorney