alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I,BachThuy T. Vo, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro ComponentTechnology, Inc.:

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation.

 

c)disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:      May 10,  2006 | By:                             | /s/ BachThuy T. Vo |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                                                    | BachThuy T. Vo                  |
|                                                    | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Alex KNIGHT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6265

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Sheila Coleman

Appellate case number: 01-21-00499-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-03341

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County

Relator, Sheila Coleman, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency 

motion for temporary relief. The emergency motion for temporary relief is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting individually 

Date: September 23, 2021
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5277 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-01898-UNA

Filed On: February 8, 2021

Charles L. Stringer,

Appellant

v.

John Downy, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 27, 2020

and August 18, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Decatur Liquors, Inc. v.

District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (federal courts lack subject

matter jurisdiction over “obviously frivolous” claims); Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d

186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions

of other federal courts.”). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new

complaint in the appropriate manner. See Comm. for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC,

53 F.3d 1309, 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In addition, appellant cannot compel a criminal

investigation by filing a complaint in district court. Cf. Windsor v. Evans, 403 F. App'x

527, 528 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[A] government official’s decision whether to investigate and

prosecute a case is within the unreviewable discretion of the Executive Branch.”). 

Lastly, appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by

dismissing his claims without allowing discovery, or in denying his motion to alter or

amend the judgment. See, e.g., Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers

Int'l Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Firestone v. Firestone,

76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5277 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
In Re DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., petitioners.

No. 18-557.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus is treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition for certiorari granted. Petitioners' brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, December 17, 2018. Respondents' brief on the merits to be filed on or before Thursday, January 17, 2019. The reply brief is to be filed on or before Monday, February 4, 2019. The case is set for oral argument on Tuesday, February 19, 2019.
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 of Globalwise Investments,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, William J. Santiago, President and Chief Executive 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 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 results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 30, 2013                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|                                      | 
|/s/ William J. Santiago               | 
|                                      | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

RODDY LEE ZAVALA §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv334

J. BOLIN, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Roddy Lee Zavala, an inmate at the Stiles Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this

civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States

Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders

of this Court. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing this action without prejudice. 

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the address

provided to the Court. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Report on November 1, 2023. No

objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge have been filed.

O R D E R

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are

correct and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A separate 

Case 1:23-cv-00334-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
Final Judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s

recommendations.

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 20th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00334-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/14/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       46,451
COMMITMENTS
   1,541    1,855        0   40,244   42,496   41,785   44,351    4,666    2,100

CHANGES FROM 02/07/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        490)
    -279      -64        0      504      313      225      249      265      241

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     3.3      4.0      0.0     86.6     91.5     90.0     95.5     10.0      4.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       53)
       2        4        0       27       31       29       35
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/14/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       79,498
COMMITMENTS
  13,942   18,643      223   55,542   57,144   69,707   76,010    9,791    3,488

CHANGES FROM 02/07/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,024)
   1,322     -654        0    1,504    3,284    2,826    2,630      198      394

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    17.5     23.5      0.3     69.9     71.9     87.7     95.6     12.3      4.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       84)
      20        5        1       41       31       61       37
```

----

Updated February 17, 2012
ex10-4.htm







EXTENTION AGREEMENT







to







OPTION AGREEMENT












dated May 15th 2011 by and between:






















EMAC Handels AG (“EMAC”)


Churerstrasse 106, CH-8808 Pfaeffikon/Switzerland







and







LONG CANYON GOLD RESOURCES CORP. (“LCGRC”)


(formerly: FERGUSON HOLDINGS LTD.)


341 West 3rd St., #309, North Vancouver BC, Canada, V7M 1G3







also known as (“the parties”)

















WHEREAS:












The Effective Date of the S-1 as filed and subsequent approval for trading on the OTC-BB


is taking longer than expected












IT IS HEREBY AGREED by the PARTIES, THAT:













	
a)  

	
the period to exercise the options extended by EMAC to Canyon Gold as given under  paragraph 2) of the above Option Agreement shall be extended to December 31, 2012,  whereby part or all of the given sections may be exercised at any time on or before December 2012;













	
b)  

	
title to any claim acquired under the Option Agreement shall be transferred to Canyon Gold within 30 days from acquisition by Canyon Gold under the Option Agreement;













	
c)  

	
paragraph 2) of the Option Agreement shall herewith be superseded by a) above;













	
d)  

	
all other conditions and rights as given in the Option Agreement shall remain in full effect.






















IN WITNESS THEREOF each of the Parties have executed this Agreement on March 28, 2012.

















Signed,


corpir@otcsbrx.com                                                    



 



	 EMAC Handels AG 	 LONG CANYON GOLD RESOURCES CORP. 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 /s/ Reinhard Hiestand	 /s/ Harold Schneider	 	 
	 Reinhard Hiestand, President	 Harold Schneider, President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP

LEAD CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, 

LLC AND AT&T CORP.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO FOCUS PATENT CLAIMS

Before the Court is Headwater Research LLC’s (“Headwater”) Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion to Focus Patent Claims. The Court has considered the Motion, Opposition, all responsive 

pleadings, and the case of record, and is of the opinion that Defendants’ Motion to Focus Patent 

Claims, should be DENIED. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is hereby DENIED.

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 54-1 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1075
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

JAY WILLIAMS §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv354

JUDGE NANCY PERRYMAN, ET AL. §

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PlaintiffJay Williams, an inmate currently confined in the HendersonCounty Jail in Athens, 

Texas proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This Court referred the matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate 

Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. On August 17, 2023, 

the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) with 

prejudice asto the refiling of another in forma pauperislawsuit raising the same claims, but without 

prejudice to the filing of the lawsuit upon payment of the statutory filing fee or proof that the 

Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury related to the basis of the complaint.

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report. Since the report was entered, however, 

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the release of all his family members from jail and for the arrest 

of unspecified Henderson County officials, a “notice of writ of prohibition” asking thatstate district 

judge Nancy Perryman release individuals identified as Hailie and Charles Williams from 

“involuntary servitude,” a notice complaining that the Twelfth Judicial District Court of Appeals 

denied him an emergency hearing even though his son Jordan Williams is in immediatedanger of 

dying, and a motion that arrests of unspecified individuals be made and a grand jury be empaneled 

to seek criminal chargesfor various alleged offenses committed against Plaintiff’sfamily members. 

None of these documents allude to the magistrate judge’s report or the basis of the 

recommendation for dismissal, and thus cannot be construed as objectionsto thisreport. Even were

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 16 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 46
2

the Court to construe these documents as objections, a de novo review of such objections in relation 

to the pleadings and the applicable law demonstrates that they are without merit. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b).

O R D E R

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings offact and conclusions 

of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A 

final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s 

recommendations.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 8th day of November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00354-MJT-ZJH Document 16 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 47
Michael CLARK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6895.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS § 

 § 

v. § Case No. 2:23-cv-424-JRG 

 § 

TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, § 

INC., ET AL §

ORDER 

The Court, having considered the motion for extension of time to comply with 

Infringement and Invalidity Contentions, finds that the motion should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadline to comply with P.R. 3-1 AND 3-2 is 

extended up to and including November 30, 2023 and the deadline to comply with P.R. 3-3 AND 

3-4 and with the Standing Order Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions is extended up 

to and including January 29, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00424-JRG Document 21-1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 176
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AINER AM IN B ER

NAL, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-70165 Age n c y No. A077-117-811 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. R a ine r Am in B e rna l, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng him a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion under 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t B e rna l file d his untime ly a sy lum a pplic ation within a

re a sona ble pe riod of tim e a fte r he le arne d of thre ats a ga inst his unc le s in M e xic o. Se eHusy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th C ir. 2008). Thus, B e rna l’ s a sy lum c la im fa ils. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t B e rna l did not e sta blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not tha t he would bepe rse c ute d

if re t urne d to M e x ic o. Se eN

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (spe c ulative fe ar wa s insuffic ie nt to c om pe l a finding of a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution). Ac c ordingly , B e rna l’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils. Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of B e rna l’ s C AT c la im be c a use he did not e sta

blish it is m

o re like ly tha

n not tha t he would be torture d if re turne d to M e x ic o. Se eSilay a , 524 F.3d a t 1073. Thus, B e rna l’ s C AT c la im fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 0 1 6 5 2
Michael WHISBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6375.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BLAKE J. WATTERSON;

Plaintiff,

v.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; 

STEVEN DETTELBACH, in his 

official capacity as Director of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE; 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00080

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER

5 U.S.C. § 705 OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705 

or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction and all briefing submitted in support 

of and in opposition to the motion, as well as the applicable law, concludes that the 

motion has merit and should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS 

ORDERED that:

1. The effective date of the challenged rule, Factoring Criteria for Firearms 

with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” 88 Fed. Reg. 6,478 (Jan. 31, 2023) 

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 7-1 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 289
(the “Final Rule”), is declared to be March 2, 2023, because Defendants 

lacked the statutory authority to make the Final Rule effective 

immediately on publication. 

2. The effective date of the Final Rule is postponed until 60 days after the 

case is resolved on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00080-ALM Document 7-1 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 290
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 30, 2007

Mr. Stephen G. Tipps

Baker & Botts, L.L.P.

910 Louisiana, One Shell Plaza

Houston, TX 77002-4995

Mr. Lloyd E. Kelley

Lloyd E. Kelley & Associates

2726 Bissonnet, Suite 240 PBM#12

Houston, TX 77005

RE:Case Number:  05-0587

Court of Appeals Number:  01-03-00925-CV

Trial Court Number:  789357

Style:HOUSTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION SYSTEM

v.

CRAIG E. FERRELL, JR., ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Willett not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0587Page 1**