alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 7 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROLANDO HERNANDEZ PEREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. INTERCONNECT DEVICES INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-3356 (D.C. No. 97-CV-2194-GTV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

The district court granted summary judgment againstplaintiff Rolando Hernandez Perez on his claims that his former emplo yer, defendant Interconnect Devices Incorporated, was liable to him for common- law negligence and discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in viol ation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 200 0e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213; and the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-1001 to 1044. Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment ruling and also alleges that he wa s mistreated during the course of litigation. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court to determine whetherthere is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether defendant is entitledto judgment as a matter of law. See Zinn v. McKune , 143 F.3d 1353, 1356 (10th Cir. 1998). We examine the factual record and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. Guided by these standards, we have reviewed the rec ord and conclude that the district court was correct in entering summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, we find no support in the record for plai ntiff’s claims of misconduct on the part of the district court judge, magistrate judge, appointed counsel, and-3-

opposing counsel. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s thorough, well-reasoned order date d October 22, 1998. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-14      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 1 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-14      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 2 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-14      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 3 of 3
#### STATE v. JUAN

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 208.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1974.
Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 7 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 7 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. ADAMS

No. 160 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 57.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,242,597
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        3,885,755
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          3,851,322
<EQUITIES>                                     859,417
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,247,415
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   76,707
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              14,520,538
<CASH>                                         421,690
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,257,422
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         903,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,102,985
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,488,680
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             42,107
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 483,918
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       11,318,764
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                647,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     53,000
<COMMON>                                        88,432
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,078,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,102,985
<PREMIUMS>                                     500,141
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            657,850
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              38,603
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 381,160
<BENEFITS>                                     912,299
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     85,700
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                          (102,200)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                331,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                   112,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            219,103
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   216,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.04
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50484 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. FERN AN DO RAM I REZ- CO RRA L , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 09- C R
- 140- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederal P u bl i c D efen der app oi n t ed to represent F erna n do R am i rezC orra l h a s m ov ed for l ea ve to w i th d ra w a n d h a s fi l ed a brief i n acco rd a n ce w i th A n d er s v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Ram i r e z - Cor r alha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he re c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no n on frivo l ou s is s u e for ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50484 Document: 00511048546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
#### CARDWELL v. WELCH

No. 112 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 390.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 June 1975.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-32223, Registration Statement No. 333-11883, Registration Statement No.
33-35549, Registration Statement No. 33-35719, Registration Statement No.
33-72502, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-97542,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-78926, and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 2-78925 on Forms
S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-32684 on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 18, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Thoratec
Laboratories for the year ended January 1, 2000.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
March 24, 2000
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements of U.S. Energy Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-31030), Form S-8 (No. 333-75690), Form S-3 (No. 333-36307), Form S-3 (No. 333-36232), Form S-3 (No. 333-55872) and Form S-3 (No. 333-87264) of our report dated March 31,2006, on the Consolidated Financial Statements of U.S. Energy Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and for the year then ended, which report appears in its 2006 Annual Report, on Form 10-K. 

/s/ EISNER LLP 

New York, New York 

June 4, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024

SC-2023-0964

Ex parte Louis Stinson, Jr. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Louis Stinson, Jr. v. State 

of Alabama) (Elmore Circuit Court: CC-19-351; Criminal Appeals: CR20-0566).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on February 9, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
Case 7:07-cv-03249-CLB Document 3 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 21









BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



Subsidiaries of Registrant

as of February 22, 2006





|                                             | Percentage | State/Country of
|-------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ----------------
|                                             | Ownership  | Incorporation   
|                                             |            |                 
|                                             |            |                 
|Arlon, Inc.                                  | 100%       | Delaware        
|Kasco Corporation                            | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Adhesives & Films, Inc. (1)            | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon Partners, Inc. (1)                     | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Signtech, Ltd. (1)                     | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon Viscor, Ltd. (1)                       | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon MED International, LLC (1)             | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Materials for Electronics Co. Ltd. (1) | 100%       | China           
|Arlon Material Technologies Co. Ltd. (1)     | 100%       | China           
|Bertram & Graf GmbH (1)                      | 100%       | Germany         
|Atlantic Service Co. Ltd. (1)                | 100%       | Canada          
|Atlantic Service Co. (UK) Ltd. (1)           | 100%       | United Kingdom  
|EuroKasco S.A. (1)                           | 100%       | France          
|Kasco Mexico LLC                             | 100%       | Delaware        
|Kasco Ensambly S.A. de C.V. (1)              | 100%       | Mexico          













(1) Indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Bairnco Corporation.
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03362-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 21 of 21
#### STATE v. BRANDON

No. 139 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 262.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15058-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### LA GRENADE v. GORDON

No. 215 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 329.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980. Appeal dismissed 15 July 1980.
Case 1:06-cv-15024-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MCLOGIE PROPERTIES INC.,

Respondent

v.

KIDDER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING 

BOARD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 392 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES PHILLIP BARRETT

No. 525A82

(Filed 19 November 1982)

ORDER

Defendant has attempted to appeal to this Court from the denial of his motion for appropriate relief by the Court of Appeals, with *Becton, J.,*dissenting. This he cannot do. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1422(f) (Cum. Supp. 1981). Defendant’s motion is based upon N.C.G.S. 15A-1415(b)(2) (Cum. Supp. 1981). Nevertheless, the record on appeal before us discloses that defendant was convicted of crime against nature, which is not a lesser included offense of a sexual offense in the first degree. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.4 (1981). Therefore, we arrest judgment. The appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction that it further remand the case to the Superior Court of FORSYTH County for the entry of this order arresting judgment.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of November, 1982.

MARTIN, J. For the Court
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 130 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 608.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 11 September 1970.
#### DAVIS v. SILOO INC.

No. 354PC

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 237

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 October 1980.
exv10w6







Exhibit 10.6



CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED: Certain portions of this document have been omitted pursuant to a
request for confidential treatment and, where applicable, have been marked with an asterisk
(“[****]”) to denote where omissions have been made. The confidential material has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.




Amendment dated on or about June 26, 2009




to Master Supply Agreement with




IBC Solar AG, dated July 14, 2008




[****]




	 	 	 
	Evergreen Solar, Inc.

	 	IBC Solar AG
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 6      Filed 12/02/2004     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT A 

Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03365-PAC Document 1 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 9 of 9
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Kimball International,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Robert F. Schneider, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 

| Date: November 5, 2010 |   |                                                                        |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | /s/ Robert F. Schneider                                                     |
|                   |   | ROBERT F. SCHNEIDER    Executive Vice President,    Chief Financial Officer |
#### MILLS, INC. v. COBLE, SEC. OF REVENUE

No. 104 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 157.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 December 1974.
#### MURPHY MFG. CO. v. DEPOSIT CO.

No. 116 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 321.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



(1)

The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 28, 2008 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:  January 12, 2009 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|----------------------- | -----------------------
|                        | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |                        
|Date:  January 12, 2009 | /s/ Mark Buckrey       
|                        | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF
PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                               |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  | Shares
|---------------------------------------------- |  | - | --------- | - |  |  |  |  |  |  | ------
|Basic (loss) per share                         |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|For the three months ended                     |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Basic shares outstanding at September 30, 2003 |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Net (loss)                                     |  | $ | (151,692  | ) |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|                                               |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Weighted average basic shares outstanding      |  |   | 1,762,447 |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       



|                                                 |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  | Shares
|------------------------------------------------ |  | - | --------- | - |  |  |  |  |  |  | ------
|Diluted (loss) per share                         |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|For the three months ended                       |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Diluted shares outstanding at September 30, 2003 |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Net (loss)                                       |  | $ | (151,692  | ) |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|                                                 |  |   |           |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       
|Diluted shares outstanding                       |  |   | 1,828,017 |   |  |  |  |  |  |  |       



*Note: Basic earnings per share is computed as earnings divided by weighted average shares outstanding. Diluted (loss) per share is the same as Basic (loss) per share when a loss occurs.
STAND 

TOGETHER

JOIN THE NATIONAL 

FIREFIGHTER REGISTRY

NFR.CDC.GOV

Join your brothers and sisters in a new 

effort to understand and reduce cancer. 

Together, we can have a lasting 

impact on the fire service.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2023-112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2023112

March 2023
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 7:07-cv-03324-SCR Document 9-5 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 13 of 13
#### STATE v. FOSTER

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 226.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 May 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 4 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 4 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 4 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 4 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 4 of 4