alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,273,545
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,570,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,346,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,540,188
<PP&E>                                      14,382,265
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,855,796)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,212,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,573,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,111
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,668,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,212,673
<SALES>                                      8,289,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,289,742
<CGS>                                        4,748,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,748,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,999,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (22,363)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,804,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                   701,949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,102,648
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     ART. 5 FOR FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,432
<INVENTORY>                                     21,820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,813
<PP&E>                                         259,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,039
<BONDS>                                        468,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               11
<PREFERRED>                                    113,037
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                    (325,394)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,218
<SALES>                                         27,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,916
<CGS>                                           22,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (199,620)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (5,072)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (12,455)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,044
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (4,527)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.19)
        



</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEN HUEI CHENG, a.k.a. En Hui

Zheng,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73826

Agency No. A095-687-729

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 21, 2014** 

Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Wen Huei Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have

FILED

JAN 23 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

11-73826
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We

deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng’s motion to reopen

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel where she failed to comply with the

threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and

the alleged ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the administrative

record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir. 2004).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cheng’s remaining contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 11-73826
#### Timotheo RIVERA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-50548.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 4, 2005.

Timotheo Rivera, Gatesville, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Timotheo Rivera, Texas prisoner # 855199, for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus application as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is GRANTED. Rivera’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is also GRANTED. Rivera’s motion for certification of a question to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or, in the alternative, for an order for the respondent to produce the state-court record or, in the alternative, for supplementation of the record on appeal is DENIED. Rivera challenges his state-court murder conviction.

Rivera alleges that he filed his state habeas application in November 2003, and not on January 14, 2004, as he acknowledges he alleged in the district court, and he contends that his state habeas application was timely to toll the limitations period and render his federal habeas application timely. A COA may issue only if Rivera makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “The COA determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, *528123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Because his habeas application was dismissed on procedural grounds, Rivera also must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

The record indicates that Rivera’s state habeas application was received and filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on January 14, 2004. However, the date that the application was filed in the court of conviction is unclear from the record. *See*TexCode Crim. P. Ann. art. 11.07 § 3(b)(Vernon supp.2004). We therefore cannot determine whether or not Rivera’s federal habeas application was time-barred. It is conceivable that Rivera filed his state habeas application in time to toll the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and render his federal habeas corpus application timely. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). We therefore grant Rivera’s COA motion, vacate the order dismissing his habeas application, and remand the case for further proceedings in the district court.

COA GRANTED; IFP GRANTED; MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION, ORDER PRODUCTION OF RECORD, OR SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED. VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon LOYA-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51130.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 13, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to remand the case to the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division for resentencing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s alternative request for an extension of time to file the Appellee’s brief 14 *583days from the denial of Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as moot.

*

 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 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 31 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 31 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
No. 03-13-00025-CV

In the Third Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas

Jerry Scarbrough, et al

Appellant

v.

Helen Purser, et al.

Appellee

On Appeal from the 146th Judicial District Court of

Bell County, Cause No. 236,117-B

UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

POST-SUBMISSION BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

1.

 This case was presented to Chief Justice Rose and Justices Field and Borland 

on October 22, 2015. Jerry Scarbrough, Melissa Deaton and Denise Steele Pierce 

are the appellant/third-party defendants. Helen Purser, Bubba Purser, Elizabeth 

Purser Tipton, Sue E. Van Zanten, and JoAnn Purser (the “Purser Family”) are the 

appellees/third-party plaintiffs. 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00025-CV

7964490

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/24/2015 10:19:49 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/24/2015 10:19:49 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2.

On November 12, 2015, counsel for the Pursers filed a post-submission brief, 

to answer questions the panel had asked both counsel. Counsel for the third-party 

defendants now asks for leave to also answer these questions that were asked of both 

parties. Counsel for the Purser Family does not object to the granting of leave to 

file.

3.

There have been no prior post-submission briefs in this case except for Mr. 

Moore’s submission for the Purser family. It would skew the presentation of this 

case if these post-submission briefs were not allowed, because the time allotted to 

argument was not enough to properly answer all questions and address all major 

issues.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Filing of this post-submission brief is unopposed by counsel for the Pursers. 

These briefs are not particularly long, but allow the justices’ questions to be 

answered.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the third-party defendants ask 

this Court for Leave to File Third-Party Defendants’ Post-submission Letter Brief 

and for such other and further relief as may be just.
Respectfully submitted,

____/s/ MB CHIMENE_________

THE CHIMENE LAW FIRM

Michele Barber Chimene

TBN 04207500

2827 Linkwood Dr.

Houston, TX. 77025

PH: 832 940-1471; no fax

michelec@airmail.net

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for the third party defendants has attempted to reach Daryl Moore, 

counsel for the Purser Family and he has emailed me that he is not opposed, as 

witnessed by this signature.

_____/s/ MB CHIMENE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on 11/23/15 she served a true and correct copy 

of this Motion to Mr. Daryl Moore by email.

_____/s/ MB CHIMENE_________
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 1 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 2 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 3 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 4 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 5 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 6 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 7 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 8 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 9 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 10 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 11 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 12 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 13 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 14 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 15 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 16 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 17 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 18 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 19 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 20 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 21 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 22 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 23 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 24 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 25 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 26 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 27 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 28 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 29 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 30 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 31 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 32 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 33 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 34 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 35 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 36 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 37 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 38 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 39 of 40
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 160-2 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 40 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 3 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 3 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Airman Accounted For From World War II (Nies, W.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
EXHIBIT 3.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

KREISLER
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Corporation), resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

RESOLVED, the first paragraph of Article FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended to read as stated in Exhibit A
attached hereto.

SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of
the Corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the
amendment.

THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its
authorized officer this 5th day of December, 2006.



KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ Edward A. SternName:

Edward A. SternTitle:

Co-President, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer




---

EXHIBIT A

TO

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

KREISLER MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION

Fourth, the total number of shares of all classes of stock which the corporation shall have authority to issue is 6,000,000 shares of
common stock, par value $0.125 per share (Common Stock).
#### Kathryne S. Marston, as Executrix of John D. Marston, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Marston*v. *City of New York,*171 App. Div. 947, affirmed.

(Argued June 4, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 4, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action on contract. Plaintiff sued to recover $9,659.26, on the theory that she was entitled to be paid for 9,958 square yards of asphalt paving at the rate of ninety-seven cents a square yard. She alleged that the contract, made between the Uvalde Asphalt Paving Company and the city, of January 30, 1911, provided that the contractor should receive compensation, at the rate of ninety-seven cents' a square yard, for all asphalt pavement laid by it; that it laid 272,892.1 square yards of pavement for which, with other work, it was entitled to receive $266,799.14; .that it was only paid $257,139.87 and that the chief engineer of the bureau of highways certified to the comptroller, for payment, 262,934.1 square yards, instead of the 272,892.1 square yards which were actually laid. The refusal to certify for payment the 9,958 square yards in dispute is alleged to have been *“*arbitrary and erroneous and (to) constitute a fraud upon the plaintiff and a breach of the said contract.” The answer, after denying the material allegations of the complaint, excepting that $257,139.87 had been paid, set forth as a first defense payment, and as a second defense that the final certificate was binding upon the plaintiff.

*R. Floyd Clarke*and *James F. McKinney*for appellant.

*William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley, John F. Collins*and *William A. Walling*of counsel), for respondent.

*582Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 21 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 1