alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1759 

AN ACT 

To amend title III of the Social Security Act to extend 

reemployment services and eligibility assessments to all 

claimants for unemployment benefits, 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 1759 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Building on Reemploy3 ment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment for 

4 Workers Act’’ or the ‘‘BRIDGE for Workers Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public 

8 Law 115–123) improved program accountability for 

9 effectively serving unemployed workers and made a 

10 significant new investment in reemployment services. 

11 (2) Research shows the longer workers are out 

12 of work, the harder it can be to maintain their skills, 

13 professional network, and stable home life. 

14 (3) Reemployment services give workers who 

15 might otherwise struggle to find new jobs the tools 

16 that they need to get back to work—such as individ17 ualized career counseling and job search help as well 

18 as local labor market information—and they can 

19 serve as an entry point to the workforce development 

20 system. 

21 (4) Reemployment services have been dem22 onstrated to reduce the number of weeks that pro23 gram participants receive unemployment benefits by 

24 improving their employment outcomes, including 

25 earnings. 
3 

•HR 1759 EH

1 (5) Unemployment benefits replace less than 

2 half of working income, on average, so workers who 

3 find new jobs quickly suffer less financial hardship. 

4 (6) Combining targeted reemployment services 

5 with unemployment benefits helps keep people at6 tached to the labor force who might otherwise be7 come discouraged and drop out. 

8 (7) The Congressional Budget Office estimates 

9 that, over time, investments in reemployment serv10 ices create savings for taxpayers and unemployment 

11 trust funds by reducing spending on unemployment 

12 benefits. 

13 (8) Many different types of workers can benefit 

14 from reemployment services. Reemployment services 

15 should be used to shorten the duration of unemploy16 ment for workers even if they are not projected to 

17 fully exhaust their unemployment benefits. 

18 SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES. 

19 Section 306(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 506(a)) is amended— 

21 (1) by striking ‘‘individuals referred to reem22 ployment services as described in section 303(j)’’ 

23 and inserting ‘‘claimants for unemployment com24 pensation, including claimants referred to reemploy25 ment services as described in section 303(j),’’; and 
4 

•HR 1759 EH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘such individuals’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘such claimants’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1759 

AN ACT 

To amend title III of the Social Security Act to exfits, and for other purposes. ments to all claimants for unemployment bene- tend reemployment services and eligibility assess-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MILES THOMAS CLARKE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-136-N, CA-95-673-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miles Thomas C larke, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Clarke , Nos. CR-89-136-N;CA-95-673-2 (E.D. Va. July 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Susana Rodriguez and Jose Rodriguez

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 07cv05315 (AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 14, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00377

- CV

KIP H. ALLISON v. WORLDVENTURES MARKETING, LLC d/b/a WORLDVENTURES AND WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a WORLDVENTURES

On a ppeal from the 160th District Court of Dallas County , Texas Trial Cause No. DC

- 11

- 09451

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 . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellan t. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 5, 2013

.
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 54 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 54 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 54 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 54 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 54 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 5 of 5
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




Description of Director Compensation




	 	 	 
	Compensation Element	 	Terms or Amounts
	General Board Service — Cash

	 	Ø Board retainer: $25,000
	 

	 	Ø Board meeting fees: none
	 
	 	 
	General Board Service — Equity

	 	Ø Initial grant: 25,000 options
	 

	 	Ø Annual grant: 6,000 options, granted at time of annual meeting provided director
has had at least 6 months of prior service
	 

	 	Ø Existing directors receive one-time “true-up” grants to bring director to 25,000
share initial grant
	 
	 	 
	Equity Vesting

	 	Ø Initial grant: Three-year vest; one third will vest on each anniversary
	 

	 	Ø Annual grant: One-year vest after date of grant
	 
	 	 
	Committee Service

	 	Ø Eliminate per meeting fees and replace with the following retainers:






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Committee	 	Chair	 	Member
	Audit
	 	$	25,000	 	 	$	12,500	 
	Compensation
	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	3,750	 
	Nominating & Governance
	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	2,500	 






	 	 	 
	Cash Fee Provisions

	 	Ø All fees payable quarterly
	 

	 	Ø Directors must receive at least 50% of cash fees in the form of restricted stock
grants and may receive up to 100% in the form of restricted stock grants
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 54 – National Land Cover Database 2019      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we learn about the latest land cover release from EROS.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary:** The National Land Cover Database, or NLCD, was the first and remains the most well-known set of satellite-based land cover mapping products released by EROS. It sorts the each 30-by-30-meter plot of land in the United States into a land cover class, such as cropland, pasture, high-intensity developed, deciduous forest, and the like. It also includes information on impervious urban surfaces, forest canopy cover and more. For this episode of Eyes on Earth, we hear about the latest release, NLCD 2019, the importance of land cover, and how mapping teams at EROS work together to produce accurate, reliable information.

**Guest:** Jon Dewitz, USGS National Land Cover Database manager

**Host:**John Hult

**Producer:** John Hult

**Release date:**July 12, 2021

**More on NLCD**: 
                            - National Land Cover Database 2019
                            - National Land Cover Database web viewer
                            - Eyes on Earth Episode 3 – National Land Cover Database
                            - New Land Cover Maps Capture Nearly Two Decades of Change Across the U.S.

## Related Content

                  -              Science           

Find every episode of Eyes on Earth on our show page.

link

####                 Eyes on Earth              

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. 

link

####   Eyes on Earth

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. 

Learn More

## Related Content

Find every episode of Eyes on Earth on our show page.

link

####                 Eyes on Earth              

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. 

link

####   Eyes on Earth

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. 

Learn More

### Contacts

#### Timothy A. Glynn

##### Chief of Staff

Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

tglynn@usgs.gov

605-594-6046
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 15 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 5 of 5
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Steven LESANE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-8158.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2013.

Decided: May 2, 2013.

James Steven Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Steven Lesane first seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order denying Lesane § 2255 relief.

Lesane also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his second Fed. R.Crim.P. 33 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Lesane’s second Rule 33 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Lesane,*Nos. 3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00109-REP, 2012 WL 6214424 (E.D.Va. Dec. 13, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------X 

 : 

GLENN STORMAN : 

 : 

 Plainitff, : 

 : 

 -against- : 

 : 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 : 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------X 

Index No. 07-CV-5797 

JUDGE STEIN 

DECRATION OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

JOHN C. KLOTZ, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 declares the truth of the following 

statements: 

1. I am the attorney for Plaintiff herein. 

2. On June 19, 2007 at 2:18PM, I served the SUMMONS and COMPLAINT 

herein upon the NEW YORK CITY CORPORATION COUNSEL, the party to whom 

service must be made according to New York Strate Law, at 100 Church Street, New 

York, New York, by leaving true copies tereof with Gary Jean-Gilesd, Docketing Clerk 

in said Crporation Counsel’s office, a person authorized to except service of said papers. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 

21, 2007 

_________s/John C. Klotz________ 

JOHN C. KLOTZ 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4810 

New York, New York 10118 

(212) 630-2600 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05431-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
Clear All

        17 February 2023    

                    Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Completes Arctic Training Exercise Snow Crab Ex                 
                LITTLE FALLS, Minn. –U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) completed Snow Crab Exercise (Snow Crab Ex) 23-1 this week following the departure of U.S Navy EOD units and Navy Divers at Camp Ripley in Little Falls, Minnesota.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 36 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 36 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 21
                                  ----------

                            JONES INTERCABLE, INC.
                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                                        
Evergreen Intercable, Inc.
International Aviation, Ltd.
Jones Cable Corporation
Jones Cable Holdings, Inc.
Jones Cable Holdings II, Inc.
Jones Communications, Inc.
Jones Communications of Arizona, Inc.
Jones Communications of California, Inc.
Jones Communications of Georgia/South Carolina, Inc.
Jones Communications of Maryland, Inc.
Jones Communications of Missouri, Inc.
Jones Communications of New Mexico, Inc.
Jones Communications of Virginia, Inc.
Jones Electronic Manufacturing Services, Inc.
Jones Futurex, Inc.
The Intercable Group, Ltd. (fka The Jones Group, Ltd.)
Jones Intercable Funds, Inc.
Jones Intercble of Ft. Myers, Inc.
Jones Intercable of Leeds, Inc.
Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc.
Jones Intercable of South Hertfordshire, Inc.
Jones Material Management, Inc.
Jones of Wisconsin, Inc.
Jones Panorama Properties, Inc.
Jones Programming Services, Inc.
Jones Satellite Programming, Inc.
Jones Spacelink Acquisition Corporation
Jones Spacelink Cable Corporation
Jones Spacelink Management, Inc.
Jones Telecommunications of California, Inc.
Jones Telecommunications of Maryland, Inc.
Jones Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc.
Jones Tri-City Intercable, Inc.
Jones U.K. Holdings, Inc.
Saturn Cable T.V., Inc.
Exhibit 32.2 

 

PACER TECHNOLOGY 

 

Annual Report on Form 10-K 

for the Year ended June 30, 2003 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

The undersigned, who is the acting Chief Financial Officer of Pacer Technology (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Annual Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: September 25, 2003
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

## **18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with this Annual Report of Pogo Producing Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I,James P. Ulm, II, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

1.             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ JAMES P. ULM, II                         |   |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | James P. Ulm, II                             |   |   |
|   |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

** **

March 1, 2007

----
Tracey Lyn Jarzombek, Esq., (TJ-3972)

White & McSpedon, P.C.

875 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 800

New York, NY 10001

212-564-6633

Attorneys for Defendants:

CITIGROUP lIS/H/A CITIBANK, N.A. (solely in connection

with their alleged ownership or occupancy of 120 Broadway)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--- ---- ---- -- - --------- - --- - ----- --- -- --- ---------- --- ------ - )(

ZOILA CORTEZ

21 MC 102 (AKH)

Index No.: 07-CV-05344

Plaintiffs,

-againstNOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER

TO MAST COMPLAINT

120 BROADWAY CONDOMINIUM

(CONDO #871), ET. AL.,

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Defendants.

-------- ---------------- ------ ----------- ------- --- --- ------ - )(

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that defendants, CITIGROUP lIS/H/A CITIBANK, N.A. (solely in

connection with their alleged ownership or occupancy of 120 Broadway), by their attorneys, White &

McSpedon, P.c., as and for their Response to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby

adopt their Answer to Master Complaint dated July 31, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In Re

World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, the defendants, CITIGROUP lIS/H/A CITIBANK, N.A. (solely in connection

with their alleged ownership or occupancy of 120 Broadway), demand judgment dismissing the abovecaptioned action as against them, together with their costs and disbursements and for such other and

further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 26 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York

September 5, 2008

Yours etc.,

WHITE & MCSPEDON, P.C.

By:

Tracey Lyn ar omb , sq. (3972)

875 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 800

New York, NY 10001

(212) 564-6633

Attorneys for Defendants

CITIGROUP I/S/H/A CITIBANK, N.A. (solely in

connection with their alleged ownership or

occupancy of 120 Broadway)

TO:

(Service via electronic Pacer filing)

WORBY GRONER & NAPOLI BERN, LLP

Plaintiffs Liaison

In Re Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

115 Broadway, 1ih Floor

New York, NY 10006

212-267-3700

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATTA

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10279

All Defense Counsel

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 26 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 2