alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alexander RODRIGUEZ, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. GO GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1288

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 27, 2021

NO. 03-19-00504-CR

Tiffany Wade, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Dillon MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1412

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 8, 2018]

Dillon McDonald, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.* *See* *Hart v. State* , 246 So.3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (en banc). Although two members of this panel dissented in *Hart* , we affirm because we are bound by *Hart* , which is currently the law of this district. We again certify conflict with *Cuevas v. State* , 241 So.3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Blount v. State* , 238 So.3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Mosier v. State* , 235 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; *Alfaro v. State* , 233 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; and *Burrows v. State* , 219 So.3d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Taylor, JJ., concur.
ST. CHARLES SURGICAL HOSPITAL, LLC and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery, LLC v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana, Inc., and HMO Louisiana, Inc.

NO. 2018-CC-1136

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

Denied.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00515-CR

Ex Parte John D. Ferrara

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-CCR-01643

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 25, 2021
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2078

) 

DWIGHT DUBOSE, DOC #116869, )

)

Appellee. )

)

 Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Lisa D. Campbell, 

Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for

Appellant.

Melissa Montle, and Seth E. Miller, of 

Innocence Project of Florida, Inc., 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

MORRIS, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Donald J. DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Tony M. MIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2750

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(47)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - (-)news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(2)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - kansas(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - texas(2)
              - (-)utah(2)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

State News Release        October 28, 2021        Groundwater Flow to Colorado River May Decline by a Third over Next 30 Years

State News Release        September 19, 2014        USGS Model Provides Insight into Snake Valley’s Groundwater
AQUAFINZ MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MOONSTAR 2100, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2854

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2041

___________

Kimberly Jeanquart, *

On behalf of J.A.J., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Michael J. Astrue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security Commissioner, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2011

Filed: November 10, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly Jeanquart, on behalf of her minor child J.A.J., appeals the district

court’s order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo

1

review of the record, see Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718, 721 (8th

Cir. 2005), we conclude (1) that it was proper for the administrative law judge (ALJ)

The Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 
not to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physician Kevin Jackson and

one-time consulting psychologist Vann Smith, see Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805,

815 (8th Cir. 2009) (because record must be evaluated as whole, treating physician’s

opinion does not automatically control); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 783 (8th

Cir. 2004) (generally when consulting physician examines claimant only once, his

opinion is not substantial evidence); and (2) that substantial evidence supports the

ALJ’s determination that J.A.J. had less-than-marked limitations in the functional

domains of attending and completing tasks and health and physical well-being, see

20 C.F.R. § 416.926a (functional equivalence for children). The district court is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00710-CV

K. L. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 

NO. C-12-0051-CPS, THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant K. L. M. filed her notice of appeal on October 22, 2013. The appellate 

record was complete November 12, 2013, making appellant=s brief due December 2, 2013. 

On December 11, 2013, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a), available 

at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/12/12903200.pdf (providing 180 days for 

court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant=s brief 

no later than December 23, 2013. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to 

show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
It is ordered on December 13, 2013.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field
Exhibit 99.1



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Jeffrey R. Esposito, President of Sun & Surf Inc., (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended
     October 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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




Dated: January 2, 2003





                                           /s/  Jeffrey R. Esposito
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                Jeffrey R. Esposito
                                                President
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

152 

CAF 13-00661 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY J. VENETTOZZI, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

HEIDI L. MANTELLI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

ANTHONY VENETTOZZI, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Louis P.

Gigliotti, A.J.), entered July 2, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petitions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00152

- CV J ERLENE T IPPETT , Appellant

V

.

S AFECO I NSURANCE C OMPANY OF I NDIANA , Appellee §

§ § § On Appeal from the 67th District Court of Tarrant County (067

- 294418

- 17) February 2 0, 2020 Opinion by Justice Bassel JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and rev er sed in part. We affirm the trial court ’ s order
den ying Appellant Jerlene Tippett ’ s motion for partial summary judgment. We

reverse the trial court ’ s summary judgment as to Appellant Jerlene Tippett ’ s claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of g ood faith and fair dealing, fraud, violations of Chapte r 541 of the Texas Insurance Code, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Prompt Payment of Claims provisions of Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code . We reman d the case to the trial court for proceeding s consisten t with this opinion.It is furth er ordered that Appellant Jerlene Tippett shall pay one

- half of all costs of this appeal and that Appellee Safeco Insuran ce Company of Ind iana shall pay

one

- half of al l costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel Justice Dabney Bassel
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 588 

AN ACT 

To provide for donor contribution acknowledgments to be 

displayed at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 588 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vietnam Veterans 

3 Donor Acknowledgment Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DONOR CONTRIBUTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AT 

5 THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL VISITOR 

6 CENTER. 

7 Section 6(b) of Public Law 96–297 (16 U.S.C. 431 

8 note) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (4) by striking the ‘‘and’’ 

10 after the semicolon; 

11 (2) in paragraph (5) by striking the period and 

12 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (3) by inserting at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(6) notwithstanding section 8905(b)(7) of title 

16 40, United States Code— 

17 ‘‘(A) the Secretary of the Interior shall 

18 allow the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, 

19 Inc. to acknowledge donor contributions to the 

20 visitor center by displaying, inside the visitor 

21 center, an appropriate statement or credit ac22 knowledging the contribution; 

23 ‘‘(B) donor contribution acknowledgments 

24 shall be displayed in a form approved by the 

25 Secretary of the Interior and for a period of 
3 

•HR 588 EH

1 time commensurate with the level of the con2 tribution and the life of the facility; 

3 ‘‘(C) the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund 

4 shall bear all expenses related to the display of 

5 donor acknowledgments; 

6 ‘‘(D) prior to the display of donor acknowl7 edgments, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 

8 Fund, Inc. shall submit to the Secretary for ap9 proval, its plan for displaying donor acknowl10 edgments; 

11 ‘‘(E) such plan shall include the sample 

12 text and types of the acknowledgments or cred13 its to be displayed and the form and location of 

14 all displays; 

15 ‘‘(F) the Secretary shall approve the plan, 

16 if the Secretary determines that the plan— 

17 ‘‘(i) allows only short, discrete, and 

18 unobtrusive acknowledgments or credits; 

19 ‘‘(ii) does not permit any advertising 

20 slogans or company logos; and 

21 ‘‘(iii) conforms to applicable National 

22 Park Service guidelines for indoor donor 

23 recognition; and 

24 ‘‘(G) if the Secretary of the Interior deter25 mines that the proposed plan submitted under 
4 

•HR 588 EH

1 this paragraph, does not meet the requirements 

2 of this paragraph, the Secretary shall— 

3 ‘‘(i) advise the Vietnam Veterans Me4 morial Fund, Inc. not later than 30 days 

5 after receipt of the proposed plan of the 

6 reasons that such plan does not meet the 

7 requirements; and 

8 ‘‘(ii) allow the Vietnam Veterans Me9 morial Fund, Inc. to submit a revised 

10 donor recognition plan.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 588 

AN ACT 

To provide for donor contribution acknowledgments 

rial Visitor Center, and for other purposes. to be displayed at the Vietnam Veterans Memo-
# C_2020422EN.01000301.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9799 — Goldman Sachs/Summa Equity/EcoOnline)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 422/03)

On 17 April 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9799. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9799. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2020343EN.01001201.xml

| 15.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9338 — Primonial/Samsung SRA/Building Lumière)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 343/08)

On 19 June 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9338. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9338. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2020351EN.01000401.xml

| 21.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9941 — Private Theory Luxco/ARC Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 351/04)

On 15 October 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Lamont PINK, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1515

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jen CHENG, Appellant, v. Sydney CANFIELD, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1884

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 18, 2018 Rehearing Denied September 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Troy LEBOUEF v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1026

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator shows no lower court error.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Weimer, J., recused.
STATE EX REL. Ronald C. DALE v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1168

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator's remaining claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Crichton, J., recused.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

      As of the date hereof, I, Franco Plastina, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Proxim Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Proxim Corporation.

Dated:  August 11, 2003               By: /s/ Franco Plastina
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Franco Plastina
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 1074 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM027AD

A330 - 53 - 3186 --- 1/17/11 A340 - 53 -4185 --- 1/17/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008