alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021263EN.01001301.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS

(Case T-119/17 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Temporary agents - Contract staff - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Annual assessment of allowance for living conditions - Decision on reduction of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 to 25 % - Regional coherence - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2021/C 263/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the 27 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. García Fernández and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

APPICATION under Article 270 TFUE seeking the annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 19 April 2016 ADMIN(2016) 7, fixing the ALC referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations –Financial Year 2016, in so far as that decision reduces, as of 1 January 2016, the allowance for living conditions paid to European Union staff posted in Ethiopia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Director-General for Budget and Administration of the European External Action Service (EEAS) 19 April 2016, fixing the allocation for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Financial Year 2016, in so far as it reduces, as of 1 January 2016, the allowance for living conditions paid to European Union staff posted in Ethiopia. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Director-General for Budget and Administration of the European External Action Service (EEAS) 19 April 2016, fixing the allocation for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Financial Year 2016, in so far as it reduces, as of 1 January 2016, the allowance for living conditions paid to European Union staff posted in Ethiopia.

| 2. | Orders the EEAS to pay the costs incurred in Cases T-119/17, C-427/18 P and T-119/17 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs incurred in Cases T-119/17, C-427/18 P and T-119/17 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7612
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN SPRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:01-cr-00011-1; 2:03-cv-2317) Submitted: February 26, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. M. Timothy Koontz, Williamson, West Virginia, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marvin Spry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Vital Living, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart A. Benson,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
      belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
                and




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




/s/
      STUART A.
      BENSON


Stuart
      A.
      Benson


*Chief
      Executive Officer*




Date:
      March 30, 2007
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41182

BLC ALBUQUERQUE-GC, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RUBY BERNICE CARMONA,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Victor S. Lopez, District Court Judge

Littler Mendelson PC

Jay J. Athey

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Ruby Bernice Carmona

Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DUFFY, Judge.

{1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 

proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 

been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

 

In the Matter of the Notice of 

Inet Futures Exchange, LLC 

Requesting Vacation of Designation 

as a Contract Market 

 

ORDER OF VACATION 

On November 18, 2021, Inet Futures Exchange, LLC (“Inet DCM”) submitted a notice to the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) requesting the vacation of its contract market 

designation pursuant to Section 7 of the Commodity Exchange Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 11, and 

Commission Regulation 38.3(f), 17 C.F.R. § 38.3(f). 

WHEREAS, Section 7 of the Act provides that “[a]ny person that has been designated or 

registered a registered entity in the manner [herein provided] may have such designation or registration 

vacated and set aside by giving notice in writing to the Commission requesting that its designation or 

registration as a registered entity be vacated, which notice shall be served at least ninety days prior to the 

date named therein as the date when the vacation of designation or registration shall take effect”; 

WHEREAS, Section 7 of the Act further provides that “[u]pon receipt of such notice the 

Commission shall forthwith order the vacation . . . effective upon the day named in the notice”; 

WHEREAS, Commission Regulation 38.3(f) provides that “[a] designated contract market may 

vacate its designation under section 7 of the Act by filing a request electronically, in a format and 

manner specified by the Secretary of the Commission, with the Secretary of the Commission at its
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

SCOTT CARVILLE, 07-CV-05340 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05340-AKH Document 10 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05340-AKH Document 10 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
SOLOMON ROSENGARTEN

Attorney-at-Law

1704 Avenue M

Brooklyn, New York 11230

(718) 627-4460

FAX (718) 627-4456

Admitted to Practice: 

New York 

New Jersey

January 22, 2008

Honorable P. Kevin Castel

United States District Judge

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Re: Cohen v. Horowitz, et al.

 Docket No. 07 Civ 5834 (PKC)

Dear Judge Castel:

I am the attorney for the plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. I respectfully request that 

the Court modify the Scheduling Order in this case and extend the discovery period. 

I have attempted to ascertain whether the attorney for the defendant consents to this 

application, but have been unsuccessful. On January 17, 2008, I spoke to Jeffrey Buss, 

Esq., the attorney for the defendant and asked him whether he consented to this 

application. He told me that he needed to ask his client and that he had a conference 

scheduled with his client that afternoon. He stated further that he would let me know no 

later than January 18, 2008. When I did not hear from him by 3:00 P.M. On January 18, 

2008, I telephoned his office and left a message on his voicemail. I called his office again 

on January 21, 2008 and left another voicemail. He has not returned either of my calls. 

The reason the extension is necessary is that it appeared that the parties had reached a 

settlement agreement. However, the settlement was not effectuated. Pursuant to the 

Scheduling Order, depositions were to be completed by December 28, 2007 and Requests 

to Admit were to be served no later than January 18, 2008. All fact discovery was to be 

completed by January 25, 2008. 

The parties did not conduct depositions because we believed that the case would settle. 

Since the case did not settle, I respectfully request an extension of discovery and 

modification of Scheduling Order.

Honorable P. Kevin Castel

United States District Judge

Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 15 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 1 of 2
Page 2

January 22, 2008

I wish to also note that, although disclosure pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) was due on 

October 10, 2007, before we entered into settlement discussions, the defendant has failed 

to comply with that part of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

The date of the Scheduling Order was September 26, 2007. No prior request for 

extension of the Scheduling Order has been made.

I respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order to require that 

defendant provide Rule 26(a)(1) within ten days thereof and that depositions be 

completed no later than February 29, 2008 and that all fact discovery be completed by 

March 31, 2008.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Solomon Rosengarten

SR:oc

cc: Smith, Buss & Jacobs

(Attn: Jeffrey Buss, Esq.)

Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 15 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018042EN.01002401.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-4/17) (1)

1

((Civil service - Civil servants - Automatic retirement - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of the invalidity - Classification of the claim - Reasonable period - Irregularity of the prior administrative procedure - Inadmissibility - Liability))

(2018/C 042/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Council decision of 4 March 2016 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant’s invalidity and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ángel Coedo Suárez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ángel Coedo Suárez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

1

---
300 Vesey Street New York, NY 10282 T 212 299 2200 F 212 301 4645 christopher.bowen@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com

Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

August 6, 2021

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for

FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

To Whom It May Concern:

By electronic portal dated today, August 6, 2021, NEX SEF Limited (“NEX SEF”) submitted a 

supplemental rule certification filing (Submission No. 21-366s) to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a) to certify NEX SEF 

Governance Policy (the “Policy”) and Compliance Manual (“Manual”) (collectively, the “Rule 

Amendments”). This supplemental filing includes an Appendix A (Governance Policy) and an Appendix B

(Compliance Manual).

NEX SEF requests confidential treatment of Appendix A and Appendix B (“Confidential Information”), on

the grounds that Appendix A and Appendix B contain confidential commercial information of the submitter

(NEX SEF). NEX SEF requests that confidential treatment be maintained for Appendix A and Appendix B

until further notice from NEX SEF. We also request that the Commission notify the undersigned 

immediately after receiving any FOIA request for said Appendix A or Appendix B or any other court order, 

subpoena, or summons for same. Finally, we request that we be notified in the event the Commission 

intends to disclose such Appendix A or Appendix B to Congress or to any other governmental agency or 

unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. NEX SEF does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of 

the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for such Appendix A or Appendix B.

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 299-2200 should you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christopher Bowen

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 4 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 5 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 6 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 7 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 8 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 9 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 10 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 11 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 12 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 13 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 14 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 15 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 16 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 17 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 18 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 19 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 20 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 21 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 22 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 23 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 24 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 25 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 26 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 27 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 28 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 29 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 30 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 31 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 32 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 33 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 34 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 35 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 36 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 37 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 38 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 39 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 40 of 41
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-3 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 41 of 41
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 2 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 2 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 2 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 2 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
# C_2019044EN.01006002.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/60

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T-355/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Figurative mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2019/C 44/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 1405/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Daico International BV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 36 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5