alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Frank Nelson, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Arthur V. Graseck, Esq., for appellant.Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Paul H. Senzer, J.H.O.), rendered July 23, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of speeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>On November 30, 2014, the People charged defendant in a simplified traffic information with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1180 [b]), alleging that, on that date, at 2:37 p.m., defendant had operated his motor vehicle at a speed of 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour speed zone. At a nonjury trial, the complaining police officer testified that he had been trained to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle to within five miles per hour of its actual speed and that he had observed defendant traveling 80 miles per hour on a road with a 55 miles per hour speed limit. The officer further testified that he had used a properly calibrated laser device to measure defendant's speed at 80 miles per hour. Following the trial, the District Court found defendant guilty of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1180 [b]).</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see</i> CPL 470.15 [5]; <i>People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 343 [2007]). There was testimony <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>from a qualified police officer as to his visual estimate of the speed of defendant's vehicle, which exceeded the speed limit by 25 miles per hour (<i>see People v Olsen</i>, 22 NY2d 230, 232 [1968];<a href="../2012/2012_51439.htm" target="_blank"><i> People v Les</i>, 36 Misc 3d 138</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2012]). In addition, there was evidence that the officer had employed a properly calibrated laser device, which had measured defendant's speed at 80 miles per hour (<a href="../2012/2012_51439.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Les</i>, 36 Misc 3d 138</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51439[U], *1).</p><p>Contrary to defendant's contention, the District Court neither deprived defendant of the right to present a defense nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding or limiting testimony (<i>see People v Schwartzman</i>, 24 NY2d 241 [1969]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: June 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-476-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Section 22 Adjustment to be effective 2/1/2022.                

*Filed Date:*                     1/5/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220105-5173.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 1/18/22.                

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-477-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.                

*Description:*                     Compliance filing: Rate Schedule S-2 OFO Flow Through Refund to be effective N/A.                

*Filed Date:*                     1/7/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220107-5028.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: January 7, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-00619 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

TAMMY POWERS, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-321 

 vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

 Defendant. 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #14), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such 

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and 

Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is REVERSED; 

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and 

4. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

Date: December 6, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

___________________ ____________________________________ 

 THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 428 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain disclosures of 

cell phone numbers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain 

disclosures of cell phone numbers. 

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 ‘‘Consumer Cellphone 

5 Number Distribution Protection Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MISUSE OF WIRELESS SUBSCRIBER CUSTOMER IN7 FORMATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 88 of title 18 is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 428 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1802. Misuse of wireless subscriber customer infor2 mation 

3 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly discloses to another, for 

4 gain, a wireless subscriber’s cell phone number without the 

5 express permission of the subscriber for that specific dis6 closure, if the number— 

7 ‘‘(1) is not already readily publicly available; 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(2) was obtained by the discloser or one in 

10 privity with the discloser as a condition of com11 pleting a commercial transaction that is in or affects 

12 interstate or foreign commerce and is unrelated to 

13 the disclosure; 

14 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

15 6 months, or both. 

16 ‘‘(b) As used in this section— 

17 ‘‘(1) the term ‘wireless subscriber’ means a sub18 scriber to a commercial mobile service as defined in 

19 section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934; 

20 and 

21 ‘‘(2) the term ‘cell phone number’ means the 

22 number assigned to a wireless subscriber for the use 

23 of a commercial mobile service as so defined.’’. 

24 (b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The 

25 table of sections at the beginning of chapter 88 of title 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 428 IH

1 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following new item: 

‘‘1802. Misuse of wireless subscriber customer information.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4360 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4360

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation 
  center in Long Beach, California, as the ``Major Charles R. Soltes, 
Jr., O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

Mr. Campbell (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Filner, Mr. McCarthy of 
   California, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. 
  Radanovich, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
 Lewis of California, Mr. McKeon, Mr. McClintock, Ms. Richardson, Mr. 
 Gallegly, Ms. Watson, Mr. Dreier, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Speier, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Costa, Mr. 
   Issa, Mr. Nunes, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Royce, Mr. Baca, Ms. Loretta 
 Sanchez of California, Mr. Berman, Ms. Chu, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Herger, 
Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cardoza, and Ms. Harman) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation 
  center in Long Beach, California, as the ``Major Charles R. Soltes, 
Jr., O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BLIND REHABILITATION 
              CENTER, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation center in 
Long Beach, California, shall after the date of the enactment of this 
Act be known and designated as the ``Major Charles R. Soltes, Jr., O.D. 
Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''. Any 
reference to such blind rehabilitation center in any law, regulation, 
map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the ``Major Charles R. Soltes, Jr., 
O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 1 of 13  PAGEID #: 6

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 2 of 13  PAGEID #: 7

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 3 of 13  PAGEID #: 8

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 4 of 13  PAGEID #: 9

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 5 of 13  PAGEID #: 10

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 6 of 13  PAGEID #: 11

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 7 of 13  PAGEID #: 12

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 8 of 13  PAGEID #: 13

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 9 of 13  PAGEID #: 14

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 10 of 13  PAGEID #: 15

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 11 of 13  PAGEID #: 16

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 12 of 13  PAGEID #: 17

Case: 2:18-cv-00006-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 13 of 13  PAGEID #: 18
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 Form 10-Q/A of Microtune, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief 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:



| | (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/  JAMES A.
FONTAINE

James A. Fontaine

Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 29, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2183-2184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Fluids for Electrified Vehicles

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 17, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Fluids for 
Electrified Vehicles (``AFEV'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the

[[Page 2184]]

Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Chevron Technical Center, Richmond, CA; ENEOS 
Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, 
Spring, TX; SI Group, Schenectady, NY; and Vanderbilt Chemicals, LLC, 
Norwalk, CT, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AFEV intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 16, 2021, AFEV filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 
16, 2021 (86 FR 45751).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 12, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67082).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-00596 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00526

- CR

Maria Elena Granados v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 20

- 5180

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 28, 2024
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 69
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 70
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 71
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 72
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 73
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 74
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 75
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 76
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 77
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 78
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 79
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 80
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-8 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 81
----

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 Quarterly Report of Bellacasa Productions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Preiss, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.

Date: July 13, 2005

| /s/ Steven Preiss                                                                                                                                                               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Steven Preiss, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 85
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 86
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 87
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 88
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 89
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 90
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 91
Case: 3:17-cr-00190-WHR-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 04/04/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 92
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

BRIAN DAMONT HENLEY, : Case No. 3:17-cv-421

:

Petitioner, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

 :

v. :

: 

DAVID MARQUIS, Warden, :

Richland Correctional Institution, :

:

Respondent. :

______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 24, 29, 34, 38); 

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 21), SUPPLEMENTAL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 26), SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 31) AND SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSTITUTED 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 37); DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. 1);

AND TERMINATING CASE

______________________________________________________________________________

This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner Brian D. Henley’s Objections 

(Docs. 24, 29, 34, 38) to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 

21), Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. 26), Substituted Report and 

Recommendations (Doc. 31) and Supplement to the Substituted Report and Recommendations 

(Doc. 37). Magistrate Judge Merz has recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice 

Henley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Henley objected to each of Magistrate 

Judge Merz’s entries in this matter, which is now ripe for the Court’s review. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court 

has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that 

Henley’s Objections (Docs. 24, 29, 34, 38) are not well-taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. 

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 21), Supplemental Report and 
2

Recommendations (Doc. 26), Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. 31) and 

Supplement to the Substituted Report and Recommendations (Doc. 37) in their entirety1 and 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Henley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). As 

reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Henley is denied a certificate of 

appealability. The Court further certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively 

frivolous and therefore Henley should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, November 7, 2018. 

 s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 For the sake of enhancing judicial economy on review, Magistrate Judge Merz entered the Substituted 

Report and Recommendations (Doc. 31) to replace his prior Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 21, 

26) in this matter. In the interest of ensuring the completeness of the record, however, the Court has 

adopted all four of Magistrate Judge Merz’s entries.