alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021072EN.01001302.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v BA

(Case C-628/20)

(2021/C 72/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: BA

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-13-00271-CV 

________________________

IN THE ESTATE OF JESSIE GRAY, DECEASED 

 

On Appeal from the County Court 

Bailey County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2556; Honorable Sherri Harrison, Presiding 

 

June 10, 2014 

 

CONCURRING OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

 

I concur with the opinion of the majority. I write separately, however, to express 

my opinion that, while the trial court’s judgment, entitled Order for Delivery of 

Homestead Property to Surviving Spouse might be construed as determining that 

Appellee, Celia Gray, has a life-time possessory interest in the property the subject of 

this dispute, this Court’s opinion should not be read as reaching that conclusion. 

As the majority correctly states, we are faced with a situation where the record 

was not sufficiently developed to allow this Court, or the trial court, to determine whether 

the disputed property was “among the decedent’s effects” and therefore, subject to an 
2

order of delivery pursuant to section 272, or an allowance in lieu of exempt property 

pursuant to section 273 of the Texas Probate Code. See TEX. PROB. CODE ANN. §§ 272,

273 (West Supp. 2013).1 However, as stated by the majority, in the absence of 

evidence to the contrary, we must assume the record supports the trial court’s implied 

decision that the property was a part of the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, I believe the 

opinion of this Court should be construed no further than saying the trial court did not err 

in ordering that Celia Gray holds a possessory homestead interest in whatever property

interest the Estate of Jessie Gray might have owned upon his death.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

 

1

In 2009, the Texas Legislature repealed the Texas Probate Code with an effective date of 

January 1, 2014, and recodified the statutes as the Estates Code. See Act of May 26, 2009, 81st Leg., 

R.S., ch. 680, §§ 1, 10(a), 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 1512, 1731-32. Section 272 is now section 353.052, and 

section 273 is now section 353.053. See TEXAS ESTATES CODE ANN. §§ 353.052 & 353.053 (West 

Pamphlet 2013).
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

CARLOS HUMBERTO CABRERA-POLO,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2004 is corrected

as follows:

On cover page, delete "Sonia I. Torres-Pabón and Thomas F.

Klumper" and insert "Sonia I. Torres-Pabón, Thomas F. Klumper and

Nelson Pérez-Sosa," . . .
# C_2021297EN.01004001.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE - Earlier EU word mark CFA and earlier EU figurative mark CFA CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant public - Level of attention)

(2021/C 297/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Villani and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Engels and W. May, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and Global Chartered Controller Institute.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, with the exception of the costs incurred by the latter before the Board of Appeal, which are reserved; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, with the exception of the costs incurred by the latter before the Board of Appeal, which are reserved;

| 3. | Orders CFA Institute to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders CFA Institute to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 439 

Supporting afterschool programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national 

celebration of afterschool programs held on October 26, 2023. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. WARREN, Mr. KAINE, and Mr. 

CASEY) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting afterschool programs and Lights On Afterschool, 

a national celebration of afterschool programs held on 

October 26, 2023. 

Whereas millions of children in the United States have parents who work outside the home; 

Whereas high-quality programs that expand learning opportunities for children, such as afterschool, before-school, 

summer, and expanded learning opportunities, provide 

safe, challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences, 

including experiences that encourage the study of science, 

technology, engineering, and math that help children and 

youth develop social, emotional, physical, cultural, and 

academic skills; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 439 ATS 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs and high-quality 

expanded learning opportunities provide students with 

hands-on, engaging lessons that are aligned with the 

school day; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs complement regular and expanded school days and support working families by ensuring that the children of those families are 

safe and productive during the hours parents are working; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of children and youth in the United States; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs that partner with 

high-quality community-based organizations build stronger communities by integrating schools with the larger 

community; and 

Whereas Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of 

afterschool, before-school, summer, and expanded learning opportunities programs was held on October 26, 

2023, to highlight the critical importance of those highquality programs to children and the families and communities of those children: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports Lights On After2 school, a national celebration of afterschool programs held 

3 on October 26, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2021110EN.01002901.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)

(Case T-153/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 110/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 (Case R 2346/2019 2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Robert BATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 20, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges the imposition of $ 100 in prosecution costs and $ 50 in investigative costs not requested by the State, which the trial court granted in addition to the $ 3758 in costs that the State did request. The State concedes error. We thus reverse the award of costs with directions to reduce the sum by $ 150.

Warner, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.
James FRATANGELO, et al., Appellants, v. Daniel COOSEMANS, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0705

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. and Jose G. Sepulveda, Kelly R. Melchiondo and Ryan T. Thornton, Miami, for appellants.

Kula & Associates, P.A., Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel, Miami, and William D. Mueller, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ., and SUAREZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Hamilton v. Florida Power & Light Co.*, 48 So.3d 170, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("When there is a nonjury finding on disputed evidence [in an order enforcing settlement], it is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because the lower court 'is in the best position to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.' ") (quoting *Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer*, 976 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ); *Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.*, 704 So.2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (When the trial court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, "[t]he findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court's judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.").
Rodney TUNDIDOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3279

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2019

Rodney Tundidor, Miami, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Walsh v. State*, 198 So.3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

ORFINGER, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**
**DAVON TERRELL WYATT,**

**Petitioner :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  : : : : : : : : : : : : **No. 225 WAL 2016 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**
**DAVON TERRELL WYATT,**

**Petitioner No. 226 WAL 2016**  **Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

P ER CURIAM AND NOW **, this 19th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**  DENIED

**.**
# C_2020313EN.01001202.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 29 June 2020 — K v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

(Case C-285/20)

(2020/C 313/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a wholly unemployed person who has transferred his place of residence from the competent Member State to another Member State while receiving a benefit as referred to in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, and/or before his employment relationship has been terminated, is entitled to unemployment benefit under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a wholly unemployed person who has transferred his place of residence from the competent Member State to another Member State while receiving a benefit as referred to in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, and/or before his employment relationship has been terminated, is entitled to unemployment benefit under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides?

| 2. | Are the reasons for which the unemployed person has transferred his residence to a Member State other than the competent Member State, for example, on family grounds, relevant in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the reasons for which the unemployed person has transferred his residence to a Member State other than the competent Member State, for example, on family grounds, relevant in that regard?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30158

Summary Calendar

__________________

GEORGE PROBST,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

C. MARTIN LENSING, WARDEN

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(94-2608-A)

______________________________________________

September 5, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Probst, #304494, seeks relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, from his conviction of forcible rape. His argument that

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction is

nothing more than a challenge to the jury’s credibility
2

determinations and the weight given to adverse evidence. These are

factual matters to which the presumption of correctness of

§ 2254(d) applies, since Probst has failed to establish the

applicability of any of the exceptions to the presumption. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) through (8); Knox v. Butler, 884 F.2d 849, 851

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1828 (1990). The district

court did not err in denying relief on this claim. 

Nor did the district court err in finding that the

prosecutorial remarks during closing arguments did not violate

Probst’s due process rights. Even assuming a violation of Doyle v.

Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), it was harmless error under the standard

of review set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).

AFFIRMED.
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 FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 2nd Quarter 2005 ending May 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul G. AndersonPaul G. Anderson Chief Executive OfficerJuly 15, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 1 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 2 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 3 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 4 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 5 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 6 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 7 of 8
Case 24-50067-rlj7 Doc 21-1 Filed 06/04/24 Entered 06/04/24 13:40:25 Desc

Amended Schedule A/B Page 8 of 8
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE NON-PARTY SUBPOENA Page 1

4884-3408-5079v.1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.,

Debtor.

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES FRINZI, JAMES GOODMAN, 

JASON GOODMAN, and JOSEPH 

GOODMAN,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 22-31641-mvl-7

(Chapter 7)

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

NO: 24-03039-mvl

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE NON-PARTY SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS IN A CIVIL ACTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Plaintiff Scott M. Seidel (“Trustee”), as 

the trustee of Goodman Networks, Inc. (“Debtor” or “Goodman Networks”), the debtor in the 

above-styled Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, will serve the subpoena, attached as Exhibit 1, on the 

following non-party:

Signal Technology Foundation

c/o Meredith Whittaker, President

650 Castro Street, Suite 120-223

Mountain View, CA 94041

Case 24-03039-mvl Doc 24 Filed 08/14/24 Entered 08/14/24 16:30:41 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE NON-PARTY SUBPOENA Page 2

4884-3408-5079v.1

Dated: August 14, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.

By: /s/ Jamil N. Alibhai

Davor Rukavina

State Bar No. 24030781

drukavina@munsch.com

Jamil N. Alibhai

State Bar No. 00793248

jalibhai@munsch.com

Thomas D. Berghman

State Bar No. 24082683

tberghman@munsch.com

Anne-Alise “Ali” Hinckley

State Bar No. 24090786

ahinckley@munsch.com

J. Blake Glatstein

Texas Bar No. 24123295

bglatstein@munsch.com

Maddison Craig

State Bar No. 24137348

mcraig@munsch.com

500 N. Akard Street, Ste. 4000

Dallas, Texas 75201-6659

Telephone: (214) 855-7500

Facsimile: (214) 855-7584

 

ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE

Case 24-03039-mvl Doc 24 Filed 08/14/24 Entered 08/14/24 16:30:41 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE NON-PARTY SUBPOENA Page 3

4884-3408-5079v.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies on August 14, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was electronically served on all counsel of record through the Court’s ECF system of 

the Court. 

Robert A. Simon

Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz, PLLC

301 Commerce Street, Suite 3500

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: (817) 878-0543

Facsimile: (817) 878-0501

Email: rsimon@whitakerchalk.com

Jason M. Rudd

Paul T. Elkins

Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP

3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 500

Dallas, Texas 75204

Telephone: (214) 692-6200

Facsimile: (214) 692-6255

Email: jason.rudd@wickphillips.com

paul.elkins@wickphillips.com

Randall A. Pulman

Anna K. MacFarlane

Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP

2161 NW Military Highway, Suite 400

San Antonio, Texas 78213

Telephone: (210) 222-9494

Facsimile: (210) 892-1610

Email: rpulman@pulmanlaw.com

amacfarlane@pulmanlaw.com

By: /s/ Anne-Alise “Ali” Hinckley

Anne-Alise “Ali” Hinckley

Case 24-03039-mvl Doc 24 Filed 08/14/24 Entered 08/14/24 16:30:41 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
aera ¥ COURT
NO} Tse TOC OF TEXAS
ENTERED
William F. Kunotsky
SBN 00790162 - oni
Law Office of William F. Kunofsky StP 3 0 cue
10300 N. Central Expwy, #252
Dallas, TX 75231

Phone: (214) 369-1040

Fax: (214) 696-1065 ‘TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK

Attorney for Debtor () By —————_$$—$_$_$—< .
Deputy
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

§
Serdy, Joseph § No. 02-35004-HCA-7

§ Chapter 7

§
DEBTOR(S)

ORDER DISMISSING BANKRUPTCY CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CAME ON TO BE HEARD, Mr. Joseph Serdy, Debtor(s), Voluntary Motion to Dismiss
Bankruptcy Case Under 7 Without Prejudice. The Court is of the opinion that the case should be

dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, DECREED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the case is

dismissed without prejudice.

Signed this day of