alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Juan VASQUEZ; Raymond Martinez; Jeffrey Demich; James Rodrigue; Elizabeth Lauer; Don Price, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-40663.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 11, 2005.

Karen K. Fitzgerald, Kleiman, Lawrence, Baskind & Fitzgerald, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Federal Express Corp. Legal Department, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Current and former employees of Federal Express Corporation appeal a summary judgment in this action asserting various violations of the employment laws. We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. As a matter of law, *580there are no violations under any of the theories asserted. Nor is there a showing of any improperly-motivated decisions.

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 1 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 2 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 3 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 4 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 5 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 6 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 7 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 8 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 9 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 10 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 11 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 12 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 13 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 14 of 15

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-3      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 15 of 15
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Eaton Vance Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Thomas E. Faust, Jr., 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, to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|DATE: December 21, 2018 |  |  | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.                        
|----------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | (Signature)                                    
|                        |  |  | Thomas E. Faust Jr.                            
|                        |  |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 92 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 92 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 1 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 2 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 3 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 4 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 5 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 6 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 7 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 8 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 9 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 10 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 11 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 12 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 13 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 14 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 15 of 16
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 34-2 Filed 05/02/2005 Page 16 of 16
Exhibit 31(a)
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
I, Joseph P. Keithley, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keithley Instruments, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ Joseph P. Keithley   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03251-JSR Document 1 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 13.1



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 20-F of ASM International N.V. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Charles D. del Prado, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert A. Ruijter, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



(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.



|    |  |                                
|--- |  | -------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ CHARLES D. DEL PRADO       
|    |  | Charles D. del Prado           
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer        
|    |  | March 26, 2010                 
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ ROBERT A. RUIJTER          
|    |  | Robert A. Ruijter              
|    |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 26, 2010                 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 34 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 34 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-70426, 333-40026,333-104830, and 333-115982), Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-86338, 333-95529, 333-95551, 333-49489, 33-33322,33-46928, 333-113419, and 33-46929), and Form S-1 (FileNo. 333-126079) of HEI, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reportdated October 25, 2005(except as to Note 21, as towhich the date is November 23, 2005), which appears onpage 64 of this annual report on Form 10-K for theyear ended August 31, 2005.     /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLPMinneapolis, MinnesotaNovember 23, 2005
[[uspe SDNY
DOCUMENT
-ECTRONICALLY FILED ||

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK i

> 4

XIAO L. FONG,
Plaintiff,

- against

07 Civ. 3010 (DC)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

CHIN, District Judge

In an order dated March 19, 2008, the Court directed
plaintiff to advise the Court in writing on or before April 14,
2008 whether she objects to the Government's motion to remand.
The Court stated in its order that "[i]f plaintiff does not
object or does not respond, the Court will grant the motion and
remand for further proceedings before the Commissioner." The
Court has not received an objection from plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Government's motion to remand is
granted. The case is dismissed, without prejudice and without

costs or fees. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
April 16, 2008 A 2

eo DENNY CHI 3
2 States ve istrict Judge
#### DEVINE v. CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

No. 41 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 198.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 November 1973.
#### Paul HANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Francis PHILLIPS, II, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-0940.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 17, 2005.

*333Kerry A. Lawrence, Briccetti, Calhoun *&*Lawrence, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Andrew R. Kass, Assistant District Attorney for Orange County, New York (Francis D. Phillips, II, District Attorney, on the brief), Goshen, NY, for Respondent-Appellee.

PRESENT: LEVAL, STRAUB, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Hanson’s appeal after a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge), denying his petition for habeas relief from a state court judgment of conviction entered after a guilty plea, is presently *sub judice.*Prior to issuance of our opinion, Respondent filed, on February 3, 2005, a motion to dismiss the appeal and revoke our stay of Hanson’s state sentence based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and Hanson’s failure to appear and answer state criminal charges additional to those implicated by the present appeal. Hanson, through counsel, filed papers in opposition on February 9,2005.

Given the important legal, institutional, and equitable issues at stake, we think it prudent to, and, so, will, withhold issuance of any opinion resolving the merits of Hanson’s petition and appeal until we have resolved the motion. However, we find ourselves ill-equipped on the present record to accomplish this condition precedent. By this order we remand the matter to the District Court to determine, by whatever procedures it deems necessary and appropriate, the exact circumstances surrounding Hanson’s recent failures to appear in state court. This remand does not constitute a ruling. This panel retains jurisdiction to rule upon the motion and, if appropriate, decide the issues on appeal once the record has been supplemented. *See United States v. Jacobson,*15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate, which shall provide that either party may restore jurisdiction over the appeal to this panel by filing timely notification with Clerk’s Office after disposition of the remand.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 566 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall not be adjusted 

under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

in the year following any fiscal year in which outlays of the United 

States exceeded receipts of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall 

not be adjusted under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 in the year following 

any fiscal year in which outlays of the United States 

exceeded receipts of the United States. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 566 IH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE REORGA2 NIZATION ACT OF 1946. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(a)(2) of the Legisla4 tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C) An adjustment in rates of pay may be made 

7 under this paragraph in a year only if the aggregate out8 lays of the United States during the last completed fiscal 

9 year did not exceed the aggregate receipts of the United 

10 States during such fiscal year, as determined by the Con11 gressional Budget Office.’’. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 601(a)(2)(A) 

13 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Subject to subpara14 graph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to subparagraphs (B) 

15 and (C),’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Biomet, Inc. (the Registrant; Indiana corporation)

Domestic subsidiaries:
     Arthrotek, Inc. (Indiana corporation)
     Biomet Acquisition Corp. (Delaware corporation)
     Biomet Europe Ltd. (Delaware corporation)
     Biomet FSC, Inc. (Barbados corporation)
     Biomet Holdings Ltd. (Delaware corporation)
     Biomet International Ltd. (Delaware corporation)
     Biomet Investment Corp. (Delaware corporation)
     Catheter Research, Inc. (Indiana corporation)
     EBI Holdings, Inc. (Delaware corporation)
     EBI Medical Systems, Inc. (Delaware corporation)
     Electro-Biology, Inc. (Delaware corporation)
     Kirschner Medical Corporation (Delaware corporation)
     Poly-Medics, Inc. (Indiana coporation)
     Surgical Ventures, Inc. (Indiana corporation)
     Thoramet, Inc. (Indiana corporation)
     Vascu-Med, Inc. (Indiana corporation)
     Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. (Florida corporation)

Foreign subsidiaries:
     Biomet AS (Danish corporation)
     Biomet Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia coporation)
     Biomet Deutschland GmbH (German corporation)
     Biomet Ltd. (U.K. corporation)
     Biomet Norge (Norwegian corporation)
     Biomet Orthopaedics Ltd. (New Zealand corporation)
     Biomet Polska (Polish corporation)
     Biomet S.A. (French corporation)
     Biomet SpA (Italian corporation)
     Canzek AG (Swiss corporation)
     EBI Medical Systems Ltd. (U.K. corporation)
     Industrias Quirurgicas de Levante s.a. (IQL) (Spanish corporation)
     Kirschner Hellas (Greek corporation)
     Mediplant NV (Belgian corporation)
     ORTA Holdings, A.G. (Swiss corporation)
     Ortomed BV (Holland corporatoin)
     Polymers Reconstructive A/S (Danish corporation)

Each subsidiary is wholly-owned by its immediate parent, except for the
following:
     Polymers Reconstructive A/S of which Biomet, Inc. owns 51% of the
     oustanding shares, Biomet Norge of which Biomet Ltd. owns 40% of the
     outstanding shares, Biomet AS of which Biomet, Inc. owns 30% of the 
     outstanding shares, Biomet Polska, of which Biomet Ltd. owns 51% of the 
     outstanding shares, and Kirschner Hellas of which IQL owns 30% of the 
     outstanding shares.
Exhibit
      32.2




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amir Rosenthal, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to section 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, as amended; and




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











/s/
      Amir Rosenthal


Amir
      Rosenthal


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      10,
      2006











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be retained
      by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
#### Balbina Lizama GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70646.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Balbina Lizama Garcia, San Juan Capistrano, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Balbina Lizama Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Garcia’s cancellation of removal application because the BIA denied relief, in part, for failure to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We do not reach whether Garcia established ten years of continuous physical presence because her failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); *Romero-Torres,*327 F.3d at 889 (noting that an applicant must es*198tablish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship to qualify for relief).

To the extent Garcia contends that the provisions of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, this argument is foreclosed by *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15120-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
#### ROBBINS v. BOWMAN

No. 32 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 420.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 November 1970.
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14968-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13