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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 58 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, as the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHIEF ZEB SMITH POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in 

6 Fritch, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 58 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 28 PageID 94
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 28 PageID 95
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 28 PageID 96
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 28 PageID 97
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 28 PageID 98
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 6 of 28 PageID 99
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 7 of 28 PageID 100
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 8 of 28 PageID 101
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 9 of 28 PageID 102
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 10 of 28 PageID 103
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 11 of 28 PageID 104
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 12 of 28 PageID 105
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 13 of 28 PageID 106
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 14 of 28 PageID 107
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 15 of 28 PageID 108
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 16 of 28 PageID 109
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 17 of 28 PageID 110
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 18 of 28 PageID 111
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 19 of 28 PageID 112
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 20 of 28 PageID 113
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 21 of 28 PageID 114
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 22 of 28 PageID 115
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 23 of 28 PageID 116
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 24 of 28 PageID 117
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 25 of 28 PageID 118
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 26 of 28 PageID 119
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 27 of 28 PageID 120
Case 4:05-cv-00333-Y Document 23 Filed 10/20/05 Page 28 of 28 PageID 121
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

I,  Menderes  Akdag,  Chief  Executive  Officer  (principal  executive
officer)   and  I,  Bruce  S.  Rosenbloom,  Chief  Financial   Officer
(principal   financial   officer)  of  PetMed   Express,   Inc.   (the
"Registrant"), each certify to the best of our knowledge, based upon a
review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March  31,
2005 (the "Report") of the Registrant, that:

  (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                  Date: June 3, 2005

                                   By:/s/  Menderes Akdag
                                     -----------------------
                                  Menderes Akdag
                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                   By:/s/  Bruce S. Rosenbloom
                                      -------------------------
                                   Bruce S. Rosenbloom
                                   Chief Financial Officer
#### PACE SHIPPING SERVICES NETWORK, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. OCEAN D, *M/V*her engines, tackle, apparel, etc., formerly known as Haight *M/V,*Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Ocean Pride Company Ltd., Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 03-30452.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

Steven E. Psarellis, Karen S. Kovach, Psarellis *&*Associates, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-App ellant-Cr o s s-App ellee.

Robert B. Fisher, Jr., Daniel A. Tadros, Heather M. Valliant, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, LA, Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

After this case was set for oral argument, the parties filed a joint motion stating hat “the parties wish to waive oral argument in this matter and submit it on the briefs, exhibits, and the record herein.” Upon reviewing the briefs, exhibits, and the record, we conclude that the parties have not raised any pertinent questions of law; and that the multiple factual issues disputed by the parties were decided by the district court without clear error, for the reasons assigned by the district court. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 5812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01080]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

State Advisory Committees; Renewal

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the 51 State advisory committees charter.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission on Civil Rights announces the charter renewal 
of the Agency's 51 State advisory committees, Federal advisory 
committees in each State and the District of Columbia that advise the 
Commission on civil rights issues within their respective geographical 
jurisdiction.

DATES: This charter renewal will take effect on January 30, 2025, and 
expires after two years unless otherwise renewed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mussatt, US Commission on Civil 
Rights, 230 S. Dearborn St, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604, telephone 
(312) 353-8311, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Commission on 
Civil Rights (USCCR) is giving notice of the charter renewal that will 
go into effect on January 30, 2025, for the 51 non-discretionary 
advisory committees that Congress mandated per 42 U.S.C. 1975a(d). 
These advisory committees, created in each State and the District of 
Columbia, provide advice and recommendations to the USCCR on civil 
rights issues within their respective geographical jurisdiction. The 
advisory committees are composed of representatives of the diverse 
political perspectives of the bipartisan Commissioners. The diversity 
of the committees ensure the requisite range of views and expertise 
necessary to discharge their responsibilities. For more information on 
the advisory committees and to access copies of their reports and 
documents of their meetings, visit the USCCR advisory committees page 
on the USCCR website at https://www.usccr.gov/advisory-committees.

    Dated: January 13, 2025.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2025-01080 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
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

I,  Peter  Gardner, Chief Executive Officer of EAPI ENTERTAINMENT, INC. certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  the  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of EAPI
ENTERTAINMENT,  INC.,  for the year ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with
the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934  and  that  the  information  contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
fairly  presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations  of  EAPI  ENTERTAINMENT,  INC.


                                            By:       /s/ Peter Gardner

                                                      --------------------------
                                            Name:     Peter  Gardner

                                            Title:    Chief  Executive  Officer

                                            Date: March 17, 2004


<PAGE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PHILIP L. RICE,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7113

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1083, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

 Philip L. Rice moves for a 30-day extension of time, 

until September 24, 2014, to file his principal brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 14-7113 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 09/04/2014
2 RICE v. MCDONALD

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s27

Case: 14-7113 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/04/2014
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8119-8120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-857]

Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019; Correction

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published notice in 
the Federal Register on December 2, 2021, in which Commerce announced 
the final results of the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping 
duty (AD) order on softwood lumber from Canada. That notice incorrectly 
stated the all-others rate established in the less than fair value 
investigation to be 6.58 percent. The correct all-others rate 
established in the less than fair value investigation is 6.04 percent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 2, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the 
final results of the 2019 administrative review of the AD order on 
softwood lumber from Canada.\1\ Commerce incorrectly stated the all-
others rate established in the less than fair value investigation to be 
6.58 percent. The correct all-others rate established in the less than 
fair value investigation is 6.04 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019, 86 FR 68471 
(December 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 2, 2021, in FR Doc 2021-26149, 
on page 68473, in the first column, replace the

[[Page 8120]]

all-others rate of ``6.58'' percent with ``6.04'' percent.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 
CFR 351.213.

    Dated: January 17, 2025.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-01688 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CARNELL CORNELIUS ROLLINS, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1207-D

VS. §

 §

MICHAEL HALEY, Parole Officer, § 

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

August 1, 2006 conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that

the conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the conclusions and recommendation of the

magistrate judge are adopted, and defendant’s June 14, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted.

In his objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusions and recommendation—which he

styles a motion to vacate—plaintiff erroneously argues that Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b) applies to the

magistrate judge’s conclusions and recommendation. He moves the court to vacate the conclusions

and recommendation on the ground that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter them. The

magistrate judge’s conclusions and recommendation in this case, however, are governed by Rule

72(b). This is not a consent case, and the court referred defendant’s motion to dismiss to the

magistrate judge for recommendation. Under that Rule, the magistrate judge enters a

recommendation for disposition of the matter, a party can object to the recommendation, and the

district court then decides the matter after independent review. Because the magistrate judge did

not lack jurisdiction to enter the conclusions and recommendation, plaintiff’s objections (i.e., motion

to vacate) are overruled.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01207-D Document 68 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 249
- - 2

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice as to

defendant Micah Haley (sued as Michael Haley).

SO ORDERED.

August 10, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01207-D Document 68 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 250
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Luis BORN-SUNIAGA, Appellee.

No. 4D15-4853

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 20, 2019]

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

A. Randall Haas, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

***EN BANC/ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA***

Per Curiam.

Upon mandate of the Florida Supreme Court quashing this court's opinion, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing all charges against the appellee.

Gerber, C.J., Warner, Gross, Taylor, May, Damoorgian, Ciklin, Levine, Conner, Forst, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.1

1

Because we issued our 2017 opinion en banc, we have issued this opinion on remand en banc.
Exhibit 10



Exhibit 10.32

IBM Credit LLC

1500 RiverEdge Parkway

Atlanta, GA  30328



 

June 11, 2003


 

Mr. Mark Hirschhorn

Datatec Industries, Inc.

23 Madison Road

Fairfield, NJ  07004


Dear Mr. Hirschhorn:


We are here to inform you that you current credit line of $25,000,000.00 has been temporarily increased to $28,000,000.00 based upon recent advance requests needed to fund payroll and other company expenses presented in excess of the $25,000,000.00 credit line. This temporary increase is effective for the period beginning June 3, 2003 and ending August 31, 2003.  ON August 31, 2003 your credit line will be reduced back to $25,000,000.00.



All financing provided to you by IBM Credit LLC under this temporary portion of the credit line and the base portion of the credit line are subject to the terms and conditions of the Inventory and Working Capital Agreement (as amended from time to time) executed on November 10, 2000 and any other arrangements executed by Datatec Industries, Inc. and IBM Credit LLC.



If you have any questions regarding this information, please call Mike McGovern at (914) 765-6207 or Amy Baker at (800) 678-6900 ext. 7990.


 

 

Sincerely,Acknowledged and Agreed to:


 

/s/ Kimberly Ramirez/s/ Mark Hirschhorn

Kimberly RamirezMark Hirschhorn

Loan ManagerCFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ATWELL G. WEST, SR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1985-G

§

AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, §

§

Defendant. §

RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s order, entered February 10, 2006, the District Court scheduled

a settlement conference with the United States Magistrate Judge on May 3, 2006. Plaintiff did not

appear for the settlement conference on May 3, 2006. The Court conducted a show cause hearing on

Tuesday, May 16, 2006. Plaintiff indicated that he did not attend the settlement conference because

he forgot about the settlement conference. The Court scheduled a second settlement conference on

August 14, 2006, and at the show cause hearing, warned Plaintiff that if he failed to attend the second

settlement conference, the Court would recommend that the District Court dismiss his case. The Court

conducted a second settlement conference on August 14, 2006, and Plaintiff did not attend and did not

contact the Court to explain his failure to attend. The Court, therefore, recommends that the District

Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case and order Plaintiff to pay Defendant $1,800 in costs, which represents

the expenses incurred for attending the settlement conferences that Plaintiff did not attend.

SO ORDERED. August 15, 2006.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01985-G Document 32 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 101
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these conclusions and

recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party

who desires to object to these conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify

those conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not

consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections

to these proposed conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination

by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file

written objections to the proposed conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served

with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge

that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United

Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Case 3:05-cv-01985-G Document 32 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 102
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00680

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.C.B. , a Child

,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 02992

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing, filed on March 16, 2016, is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha ve hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
AGREED ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE – Page 1

 DALLAS: 508218.40008: 1547204v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, L.P., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-05CV-2163N

 ECF

THOMAS NELSON INC. D/B/A COOL

SPRINGS PRESS, COOL SPRINGS

PRESS, INCORPORATED AND

WAYNICK BOOKS, INC.,

§

§

§

§

§

Defendants. §

AGREED ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Having considered the Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (the "Motion") submitted by

The Dallas Morning News, L.P. ("Plaintiff") and Thomas Nelson Inc. and Waynick Books, Inc.

("Defendants"), and noting that Cool Springs Press Incorporated was dismissed by Order entered on

March 3, 2006, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above styled and

numbered cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of same.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all taxable costs of court

are taxed against the party incurring same.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all relief not expressly

granted is hereby denied and that this is a final Order for all purposes.

Case 3:05-cv-02163-N Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 331
AGREED ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE – Page 2

 DALLAS: 508218.40008: 1547204v1

SIGNED December 1, 2006.

____________________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING

AGREED:

/s/ Bryan Haynes

BRYAN HAYNES

 State Bar No. 09283520

 bhaynes@lockeliddell.com

MARK A. MAYER

 State Bar No. 24004389

 mmayer@lockeliddell.com

LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 740-8000

Telecopy: (214) 740-8800

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, L.P.

/s/ M .David Bryant

M. DAVID BRYANT

 State Bar No. 3281500

 dbryant@coxsmith.com

COX SMITH MATTHEWS INC.

1201 Elm St., Suite 4242

Dallas, Texas 75270

Telephone: (214) 698-7801

Telecopy: (214) 698-7899

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

THOMAS NELSON INC. AND WAYNICK BOOKS, INC.

Case 3:05-cv-02163-N Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 332