alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Economic Forecast: April 2017

16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 2016 2017 2018

National Income and Product Accounts (Chained 2009$)

Percent Change: Quarterly SAAR, Annual Q4/Q4

 Gross Domestic Product 0.8 1.4 3.5 2.1 1.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.4 2.9 2.0 2.0 1.9

 Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) 1.6 4.3 3.0 3.5 1.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.6 3.7 3.1 2.4 2.2

 Residential Fixed Investment 7.8 -7.7 -4.1 9.6 10.6 5.7 2.3 2.9 4.6 4.2 4.2 3.5 1.1 5.3 4.1

 Business Fixed Investment -3.4 1.0 1.4 0.9 5.1 2.6 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 -0.1 3.5 3.0

 Government Consumption & Investment 1.6 -1.7 0.8 0.2 -0.4 1.3 0.7 0.8 -0.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.7

Billions of Chained 2009$

 Net Exports -566 -559 -522 -605 -616 -638 -654 -680 -684 -695 -723 -747 -563 -647 -712

 Change in Business Inventories 41 -10 7 50 33 39 37 42 41 45 49 51 22 38 46

Price Indices

Percent Change: Quarterly SAAR, Annual Q4/Q4

GDP Price Index 0.5 2.3 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.2 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.9 2.6

Consumer Price Index 0.1 2.3 1.8 3.0 3.5 1.1 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.1

Consumer Price Index excl. Food & Energy 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.9 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2

Employment

Unemployment Rate (Percent) 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.6 4.5

Employment, Total Nonfarm (% Change: Quarterly SAAR, Annual Q4/Q4) 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.3

Interest Rates (Percent)

Federal Funds Rate 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.4 1.0 1.5

1-Year Treasury Note Yield 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 0.6 1.1 1.7

10-Year Treasury Bond Yield 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 1.8 2.5 2.6

April 10, 2017

Note: Interest rate forecasts are based on rates from March 31, 2017.

Note: Unshaded areas denote actuals. Shaded areas denote forecasts.

Sources: Actuals: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve Board. Forecasts: Fannie Mae Economic and Strategic Research

Opinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, and other views of Fannie Mae's Economic & Strategic Research (ESR) group included in these materials should not be construed as indicating 

Fannie Mae's business prospects or expected results, are based on a number of assumptions, and are subject to change without notice. How this information affects Fannie Mae will depend 

on many factors. Although the ESR group bases its opinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, and other views on information it considers reliable, it does not guarantee that the information provided 

in these materials is accurate, current or suitable for any particular purpose. Changes in the assumptions or the information underlying these views could produce materially different results. 

The analyses, opinions, estimates, forecasts, and other views published by the ESR group represent the views of that group as of the date indicated and do not necessarily represent the views 

of Fannie Mae or its management.

 --------------- 2016 --------------- --------------- 2017 --------------- --------------- 2018 ---------------
Wendell Lovell SMITH v. STATE

CR-16-0392

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

Reh. denied.
Exhibit 32.1



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of HouseValues, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), Ian Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John Zdanowski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 8, 2005



/s/ IAN MORRISIan MorrisChief Executive Officer/s/ JOHN ZDANOWSKIJohn ZdanowskiChief Financial Officer
* 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.

## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30342 Summary Calendar

JAMES L STROUP Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHAEL J ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-cv-5214
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### AFFIRMED. See 5 TH 

### C IR

### . R. 47.6. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D January 5, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
EX PARTE Felicia D. HUTCHINS, M.Ed.

(In re: Housing Authority of Alexander City v. Felicia Hutchins)

2170034

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017 Reh. denied December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00911]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1268 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1089, K2025-1088.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00911 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew M. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, 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:



| | (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 Corporation.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 13, 2005



By:

/s/ Andrew M. SimsName:

Andrew M. SimsTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

October 26, 2010 

139101 

JAMES PLAGGEMEYER and RUTH 

PLAGGEMEYER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 139101 

 COA: 284016 

Muskegon CC: 07-045215-NI 

THOMAS LEE, SUSAN LEE, and RYAN 

E. LEE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of October 26, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again considered. 

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part 

the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Muskegon Circuit Court and REMAND 

this case to the Muskegon Circuit Court for reconsideration of the defendants’ motion for 

summary disposition regarding whether plaintiff James Plaggemeyer sustained a serious 

impairment of body function in light of McCormick. In all other respects, leave to appeal 

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should 

be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order remanding for reconsideration under McCormick v Carrier, 

487 Mich ___ (2010), because the majority opinion in McCormick altered the criteria for 

determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold in MCL 

500.3135(7). But I reiterate my disagreement with the McCormick majority’s analysis 

for the reasons expressed in Justice MARKMAN’s dissent in that case, which I joined. I 

continue to conclude that the McCormick majority misinterpreted MCL 500.3135(7), thus 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

1018 

 

2

encouraging litigation that is expressly prohibited by the motor vehicle no-fault insurance 

act and upsetting the Legislature’s clear intent to provide Michigan citizens with timely, 

automatic benefits for injuries sustained in auto accidents while avoiding costly, 

unnecessary litigation. 

 YOUNG, J. (concurring). 

 Although I recognize that this Court’s decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 

___ (2010), now controls when a person may recover in tort for non-economic loss under 

the no-fault act, I continue to adhere to the position stated in Justice MARKMAN’S

dissenting opinion in that case, which I joined.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000299

24-OCT-2014

09:07 AM
Sharmarkco EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3294

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018005EN.01002401.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB

(Case C-608/17)

(2018/C 005/32)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Applicant:

Defendant: Holmen AB

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company?

Marks & Spencer

| 2. | Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?

| 3. | In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted?

| 4. | If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party?

---
Rayon Jefter WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0824

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal filed in case number 2D19-0824 is duplicative of the relief sought in case number 2D18-3282. Therefore, case number 2D19-0824 is dismissed.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ.T Concur.
Case 3:04-cv-02159-K Document 4 Filed 11/15/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 16
Case 3:04-cv-02159-K Document 4 Filed 11/15/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 17
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 6100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01105]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

Notice Regarding Board of Directors Meetings

AGENCY: United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and Endowment of the 
United States Institute of Peace.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: USIP announces the next meeting of the Board of Directors.

DATES: Friday, January 24, 2025 (9 a.m.).
    The next meeting of the Board of Directors will be held April 25, 
2025.

ADDRESSES: 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Dean, 202-429-7848, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Open Session--Portions may be closed 
pursuant to subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States 
Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States 
Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525.

    Authority: 22 U.S.C. 4605(h)(3).

    Dated: January 13, 2025.
Rebecca Fernandes,
Director of Accounting.
[FR Doc. 2025-01105 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2810-03-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 86 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 86

 To abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on Education and Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nullify Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration Act'' or the ``NOSHA Act''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished.
                                 <all>
```
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—Page 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; 

GNET ATC, LLC; MULTIBAND 

FIELD SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAMES FRINZI; FRINZI FAMILY TRUST; 

MULTIBAND GLOBAL RESOURCES, 

LLC, 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 22-31641-mvl-7 

(Chapter 7) 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

NO: 23-03036 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

 CAME ON FOR HEARING on the 21st day of November, 2023, the Trustee’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend Complaint (the “Motion”), filed by Scott M. Seidel, Trustee (the “Trustee”) for 

the plaintiffs in this Adversary Proceeding. Finding that service and notice of the Motion were 

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed November 22, 2023

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 28 Filed 11/22/23 Entered 11/22/23 14:15:33 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—Page 2 

sufficient and appropriate and, for the reasons stated on the record of said hearing, that cause exists 

to grant the Motion, it is hereby: 

 ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and that the Trustee is hereby granted leave to 

file his amended complaint attached as Exhibit “A” to the Motion. 

# # # END OF ORDER # # # 

4894-9256-2322v.1 013229.00016 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 28 Filed 11/22/23 Entered 11/22/23 14:15:33 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mutteb ~tate~ Qtourt of ~peal~

for tbe jfeberal Qttrcutt

SCHOLLE CUSTOM PACKAGING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GRAYLING INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2013-1005

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Michigan in case no. 03-CV-0093,

ChiefJudge Paul L. Maloney.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The parties jointly move to dismiss this appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 13-1005 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 12/19/2012
SCHOLLE CUSTOM PACKAGING V. GRAYLING INDUSTRIES 2

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s21

Issued As A Mandate: _....::..DE_C_1_9_2_01_2__

Case: 13-1005 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2012
Opinion issued May 1 9 , 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 21
- 00320
- CV

——————————— JACQUELINE ANN TAYLOR AND ZONA JILL WAINWRIGHT , Appella nt s V. CADENCE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE OF THE MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR THERESA LONA BLACKWELL, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON AND AS CUSTODAN OF THE IRA OF THERESA LONA BLACKWELL , Appell e e s
On Appeal from the Probate Court No
. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 488853
- 401

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from the trial court’s March 19, 2021 order granting interpleader

. Appellants’ brief was originally due on September 13, 2021. Two2

extensions were granted until January 11, 2022. On January 2 5 , 2021 , this Court issued a notice advising appellant s that unless the brief was filed within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Appellant s neither timely filed a
brief nor requested an extension. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) (the appellate court may dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to file appellant’s brief). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss a ny pending motions as m oot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower.
EX PARTE Chastain MCCRAY

CR-16-1052

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Shelby Cir. Ct.
STATE of Louisiana v. Randy FINCH

NO. 2017-KP-1898

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHERYL K. DANYLCHUK §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:04-CV-931-Y

 §

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER §

OF SOCIAL SECURITY §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 25, 2005, the United States magistrate judge issued

his findings, conclusions, and recommendation in this case (“the

findings”). In the findings, the magistrate judge recommended that

the decision of the commissioner of the Social Security Administration

of the United States (“the commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims

for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income be

affirmed. The magistrate judge’s order gave all parties until

November 15 to serve and file with the Court written objections to his

proposed findings.

The plaintiff filed her objections, asking this Court to reject

the findings of the magistrate judge and remand the case to the

commissioner. The commissioner did not file a response.

After reviewing the findings, record, case law, and Plaintiff’s

objections, the Court finds that the findings should be and are hereby

ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court for the reasons

stated therein.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the commissioner’s decision is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED March 24, 2006.

TRM/ah

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00931-Y Document 29 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135