alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL JOE VALLEJOS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0445 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201400637

The Honorable Dan R. Slayton, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Ammon David Barker

Counsel for Respondent

Gonzalez & Smith P.C., Chandler

By Alex D. Gonzalez

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 9-25-2018
STATE v. VALLEJOS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and 

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Michael Vallejos seeks review of the superior court’s order 

dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
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
  1.
    
    The annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and2.
    
    The information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Michael R. StanfieldName:
    Michael R. StanfieldTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Intersections Inc. and will be retained by Intersections Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Garcia, J.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- x 

CAROLYN A. GRAY., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 -againstLOCAL UNION 1199, COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN 

MEDICAL CTR., and NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN 

OF COLUMBIA AND CORNELL, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

:

:

:

:

:

: 

: 

: 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

TO STATE COURT 

07 Civ. 3238 (AKH) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- x 

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: 

On March 30, 2007, plaintiff Carolyn A. Gray, proceeding pro se, filed a Small 

Claims form complaint in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Small Claims Part, alleging 

that Defendants owe her $3000 in back pay for work she performed in 2002. See Affirmation of 

James D. Williams, Jr., June 4, 2007 (“Williams Aff.”), Ex. A. Defendants removed the case to 

this Court, averring that Plaintiff was a member of the bargaining unit represented by 1199 SEIU 

(misnamed “Local Union 1199” on the Small Claims form); that 1199 SEIU and Plaintiff’s 

employer had entered into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”); and that “the question of 

Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief turns solely on the interpretation of the parties’ CBA under 

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ....” Williams Aff., Ex. E. Upon removal, 

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Plaintiff’s complaint states in its entirety, “Action to recover monies arising out of 

money owed to me from upgrading program in emergency room. Date of occurrence: May 1, 

2002.” Williams Aff., Ex. A. Thus none of the facts upon which Defendants rely as a basis for 

federal question jurisdiction—Plaintiff’s union membership and the existence of a CBA—appear 

on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint is REMANDED to the State court from 

Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 30 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 16-9 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 16-9 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 16-9 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 16-9 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 16-9 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 299 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 205

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals.
 SUMMARY: The following permits were issued.
 ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax (703) 358-2281.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone (703) 358-2104.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. Marine Mammals
Permit number
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit issuance date099846
Donald L. Coffman
70 FR 19778; April 14, 2005
October 11, 2005.103429
Robert G. Moyer
70 FR 46183; August 9, 2005
October 11, 2005.104360
John L. Amistoso
70 FR 38190; July 1, 2005
October 11, 2005.106076
Waitman R. Kesling
70 FR 46183; August 9, 2005
October 11, 2005.106098
John R. Thodos
70 FR 41782; July, 20, 2005
October 11, 2005.106369
Scott A. Jesseman
70 FR 46184; August 9, 2005
October 3, 2005.106641
Eric G. Turnquist
70 FR 46183; August 9, 2005
October 11, 2005.
 Dated: October 21, 2005. Michael S. Moore, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.


[FR Doc. 05-23011 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### STATE v. HUTCHISON

No. 190 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 290.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 25 August 1975.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 40114 Summary Calendar

**Abid Naseer,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Jason W. Cox,** Warden FCI Three Rivers , Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21

- CV

- 57

Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Abid Naseer, federal prisoner # 05770

- 748, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge a disciplinary conviction for failing to submit to a pat down search by a female correctional officer, which he objected to on religious grounds. He argues that his conviction should be expunged, that an injunction should enter against female pat

-

* This decision is not designated for pu blication. See **5 TH**  **C IR** 

**. R.**  **47.5.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 2, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40114 Document: 00516565464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2022No. 22

- 40114

2 down searches, and that he should be granted appropriate relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The district court deter mined that § 2241 was not the appropriate means for Naseer to challenge his prison disciplinary conviction as it did not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement and that his loss of commissary privileges did not implicate due process concerns . N aseer does not address either determination in his opening brief, and he makes only a conclusory and speculative argument in his reply brief that he may eventually lose good

- time credits towards his release

. Even though we liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se litigant , such litigants must nonetheless brief issues to preserve them

. S ee Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993 )

. Likewise, we do not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

. S ee Morin v. Moo re , 309 F.3d 316, 328 (5th Cir. 2002)

. In any event, the district court correctly determined that § 2241 does not authorize Naseer to challenge the conduct at issue here

. See Spina v. Aaron , 821 F.2d 1126, 1127

- 28 (5th Cir. 1987) (addressing § 2241 petit ions) ; Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that loss of commissary privileges did not raise due process claim)

. We decline to address Naseer’s RFRA argument because he raises it for the first time on appeal. See Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).

I n the event Nasee r intends to seek relief relating to his objection, based on religious grounds, to being physically contacted by female guards, he is reminded that h e may initiate a civil lawsuit pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb

- 1(c), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc

- 1, 2000cc

- 2.

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-40114 Document: 00516565464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2022
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,149

5 CONRAD VILLEGAS, JR., 

6 Defendant-Appellant,

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY

8 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 

10 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 

11 Santa Fe, NM

12 for Appellee

13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

14 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant contends that he received an illegal sentence when, following a

2 probation violation, the trial court did not credit him with the time he served while

3 incarcerated on his original sentence. [DS 5] Our notice agreed with Defendant and

4 proposed to reverse and remand for resentencing. 

5 {2} The State has responded to our notice, indicating that the State does not oppose

6 our proposed disposition. [MIO 2] Additionally, we note that the State suggests that

7 Defendant is entitled to 365 days of credit, as opposed to 364 days, as provided in our

8 notice. [MIO 2; DS 5; CN 2] 

9 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in our notice and discussed above, we

10 reverse and remand to the district court for resentencing. 

11 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

12 

13 _______________________________________

14 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

15 WE CONCUR:

16 

17 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

18 

19 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
#### STATE v. WILBORN

No. 107.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 99.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 November 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 7 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 7 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 Gameplan, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Robert Berry, Chief Executive Officer, and principal financial officer of the Registrant, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.



|      |                |  |     |                                                                                
|----- | -------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | March 31, 2010 |  | By: | /s/Robert Berry                                                                
|      |                |  |     | Robert Berry, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 16-4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 25 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 99 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 11 of 11
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1360

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; MARY ELSTON, WIDOW OF DENMER ELSTON, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (06-0577) Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Allen H. Feldman, Associate Solicitor, Mark A. Reinhalter, Kathleen H. Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Jennifer West Vincent, PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, LC, Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of longshore survivor’s benefits on a claim filed by Mary Elston pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record dis closes that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director, OWCP , No. 06-0577 (B.R.B. Feb. 27, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:06-cv-14974-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
September 14, 2016 STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT Al6-0914


### In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Paul Jody Edlund, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0336014.
ORDER 

# fiL--

Om:cEOF A...a..u; 

### CUinS

The Director ofthe Office ofLawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Paul Jody Edlund committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline-namely, misappropriating a client's 

### funds, failing to communicate with that client, and failing to cooperate with the Director's investigation. 

### See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a)(4), l.l5(a), l.l5(c)(4), 8.l(b), 8.4(c); Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Therespondent and the Directorhave entered into a stipulation for discipline. In it, respondentwithdraws an answerhe previously filed, unconditionally admitsthe allegations inthepetition for disciplinary action, andwaives his procedural rights pursuanttoRule 14, RLPR. The partiesjointlyrecommend that the appropriate discipline is disbarment. This court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly recommended disposition. Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

1

-·-
.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent Paul Jody Edlund is disbarred, effective as ofthe date ofthis order. 2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of disbannent to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). 3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuantto Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: September 14, 2016

2

# B[r1~'k David R. Stras Associate Justice
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cr-00348-RPP Document 16 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 8 of 8