alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DANNY WAYNE BURKETT, 

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv89/RS-EMT

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25)

and Petitioner’s Objection To The Magistrate’s Report And Recommendation (Doc. 27). 

I have considered Petitioner’s objections de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and

incorporated in this Order.

2. Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 12) is granted because

Petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred from federal review.

3. The Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this case

is dismissed.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on May 26, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00089-RS-EMT Document 28 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7343

MICHAEL MCNEILL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

OFFICER 1ST MR. GERMANY; UNIT MANAGER MR. WALL, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00498-GCM) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael McNeill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Michael McNeill appeals the district court’s order 

denying as moot his motion for summary judgment. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

McNeill v. Germany, No. 3:08-cv-00498-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 

2009). 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
#### HARRELL v. WILSON COUNTY SCHOOLS

No. 500P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 260.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982. Motion by defendants to dismiss appeal for lack of significant public interest allowed 5 October 1982.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                FEB-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                            957,119
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,849,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,380,000
<INVENTORY>                                    47,395,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               63,608,574
<PP&E>                                          6,692,681
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,222,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,761,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,725,271
<BONDS>                                        31,641,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           52,016
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,342,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,761,355
<SALES>                                       123,076,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              123,076,964
<CGS>                                          78,126,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 119,203,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,865,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,007,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,007,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,007,854
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.19


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ESTEVAN VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 5:09-cv-266-SPM/MD

WALTER MCNEIL,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 11). The Parties have been furnished copies and have

been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the

Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 11) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The case is dismissed without prejudice.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of July, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SAMBO UNG,

ALIEN # a027-314-984,

Petitioner,

v. 4:10cv365-WS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

November 15, 2010. See Doc. 12. The magistrate judge recommends that the

petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. The petitioner has

filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Having carefully considered the report and recommendation, this court has

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is ADOPTED and

incorporated by reference into this order of the court. 
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:10cv365-WS

2. The petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241 (doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED as moot because the petitioner has been released

from detention and granted the relief sought.

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of December , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM N. TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv338/MCR/EMT

DAVID MORGAN, et al.

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 2). 

On September 28, 2010, a $5.96 initial partial filing fee was assessed (Doc. 8). This amount

was paid (Doc. 9). On March 16, 2011, Plaintiff was directed to pay $65.55 in past due payments

(Doc. 17). Plaintiff then paid $80.00, an extra $14.45 (Doc. 18). His most recent account statement

(Doc. 22), showing deposits through April 16, 2011, reflects that an additional $35.45 accrued,

which was $21.00 more than he paid. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the overdue $21.00, and by now

another two months have elapsed, meaning that he may be further behind in his obligations to the

court. The court issued an order to show cause on May 24, 2011, directing Plaintiff to remit all past

due amounts and to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days why the case should not be dismissed

due to his repeated failure to make timely partial filing fee installment payments to the court (Doc.

23). Plaintiff has not responded.

In addition, on April 15, 2011, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days in which to file an

amended complaint (Doc. 19). Plaintiff was subsequently requested and was given an extension of

time to June 14, 2011, in which to file an amended complaint (see Doc. 24). He has failed to file

the amended complaint as well.

Case 3:10-cv-00338-MCR-EMT Document 27 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 16th day of June 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv338/MCR/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00338-MCR-EMT Document 27 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. BARE

No. 179 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 116.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972.
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 

SILVERBACK ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC. 

MARKET STANDOFF AGREEMENT 

In connection with, and as consideration for, my receipt of shares of common stock (the “Common Stock”) or preferred
stock (the “Preferred Stock”) of Silverback Enterprise Group, Inc. (the “Company”) from the Company on November 7, 2013, I, the undersigned, agree and represent as follows: 

I hereby agree that I shall not sell or otherwise transfer, make any short sale of, grant any option for the purchase of, or enter into any
hedging or similar transaction with the same economic effect as a sale, of any Preferred Stock, Common Stock (or other securities) of the Company held by me or otherwise in my possession during the one hundred and eighty (180) day period
following the effective date of the registration statement relating to the closing of the Company’s first firm commitment underwritten public offering of the Company’s Common Stock registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (or such other
period as may be requested by the Company or an underwriter to accommodate regulatory restrictions on (i) the publication or other distribution of research reports and (ii) analyst recommendations and opinions, including, but not limited
to, the restrictions contained in NASD Rule 2711(f)(4) or NYSE Rule 472(f)(4), or any successor provisions or amendments thereto). The obligations described in this Market Standoff Agreement shall not apply to a registration relating
solely to employee benefit plans on Form S-l or Form S-8 or similar forms that may be promulgated in the future, or a registration relating solely to a transaction on Form S-4 or similar forms that may be promulgated in the future. The Company may
impose stop-transfer instructions and may stamp each such certificate with restrictive legends with respect to the shares of Common Stock (or other securities) subject to the foregoing restriction until the end of such one hundred and eighty
(180) day (or other) period. I further agree to execute a market standoff agreement with said underwriters in customary form consistent with the provisions of this Market Standoff Agreement. 

[Signature page follows.] 







 I hereby sign this Market Standoff Agreement as of the date first set forth above. 

 

			
	/s/ ROBERT SVEC
	Robert Svec
	
	  11/6/13
		 	(date)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 1, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: April 25, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR                
|                     |  |     |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**ss.
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of SulphCo, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the annual period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Rudolf W. Gunnerman,
      Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      and Loren J. Kalmen, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
      each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
      that:





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





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






*/s/
        Rudolf W. Gunnerman*
 *Rudolf
        W. Gunnerman*
 *Chairman
        of the Board of Directors*
 *and
        Chief Executive Officer*
   *March
        31, 2006*
    */s/
        Loren J. Kalmen*
 *Loren
        J. Kalmen*
 *Principal
        Financial*
 *and
        Accounting Officer*
  *March
        31, 2006*





This
                certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
                Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
                by
                the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
                purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                amended.
#### STATE BAR v. COMBS

No. 27 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 447.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 April 1980.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEITH RAGANS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv220-RH/WCS

WALTER A. McNeil et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 18). No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. All pending motions are denied. The order granting leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is vacated. The clerk must retain the $4.00 initial or

partial filing fee. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is

DISMISSED without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 14, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
# CA2009134EN.01000101.xml

| 13.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 134/1

---

RESERVE LIST
   (1)

RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/116/08

OPEN COMPETITION

Administrators (AD 8)

in the field of fraud prevention

(2009/C 134 A/01)

Merit Group 1

| KALLENBERGER | Ute |
| --- | --- |
| MAKAL | Barbara |
| MARKE | Juergen |
| SCHIEBLE | Christoph |
| STIEGEL | Ute Elisabeth |

KALLENBERGER

Ute

MAKAL

Barbara

MARKE

Juergen

SCHIEBLE

Christoph

STIEGEL

Ute Elisabeth

Merit Group 2

| ATTORESI | Massimo |
| --- | --- |
| BELENYESSY | Zsuzsanna |
| BORDONI | Andrea |
| DESQUIENS | Damien |
| DI PROSPERO | Rita |
| FERRARA | Mattia |
| FORESTI | Michela |
| GRIECO | Angelo |
| HARTWIG | Marc-Arno |
| PIERINI | Luca |
| SCHOBER | Roland |
| SIEBERT | Stefan |
| TEDO MURUA | Pablo |
| VASAK | David |
| VERBEKE | Kurt |

ATTORESI

Massimo

BELENYESSY

Zsuzsanna

BORDONI

Andrea

DESQUIENS

Damien

DI PROSPERO

Rita

FERRARA

Mattia

FORESTI

Michela

GRIECO

Angelo

HARTWIG

Marc-Arno

PIERINI

Luca

SCHOBER

Roland

SIEBERT

Stefan

TEDO MURUA

Pablo

VASAK

David

VERBEKE

Kurt

Merit group 3

| ANGELINI | Alessandro |
| --- | --- |
| BADRICHANI | Axel |
| BARTOSZEWICZ-MALICKI | Piotr |
| CHAMORRO RAMOS | Maria Lourdes |
| DE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ | Francisco Javier |
| DUMITRESCU | Vasile |
| FIORITO | Biagio |
| GARCIA MALTRAS | Elsa |
| LORETTI | Marco |
| MASCHL | Ingrid |
| NEMETH | Gyoergy |
| RUIZ RUIZ | Roberto |
| SALOMON | Jean-François |

ANGELINI

Alessandro

BADRICHANI

Axel

BARTOSZEWICZ-MALICKI

Piotr

CHAMORRO RAMOS

Maria Lourdes

DE MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ

Francisco Javier

DUMITRESCU

Vasile

FIORITO

Biagio

GARCIA MALTRAS

Elsa

LORETTI

Marco

MASCHL

Ingrid

NEMETH

Gyoergy

RUIZ RUIZ

Roberto

SALOMON

Jean-François

The list will be valid until 31 December 2010 and may be extended.

31 December 2010

---

(1)  At a candidate's request, his/her name will not be published.

1

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EVANS LEE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00185-MP -GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to

Amend and provide financial Information. (Doc. 5). Having considered said motion, the

Court is of the opinion that it should be GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have through

October 6, 2010, to file an amended complaint and provide financial information as

directed by previous Order. (See Doc. 4). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2010. 

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Daniel McAllister, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered June 24, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered June 24, 2014, affirmed.</p><p><i></i>The verdict convicting defendant of driving while impaired (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its assessment of police testimony that defendant drove some twenty miles over the speed limit and exhibited visible signs of intoxication (<a href="../2016/2016_00771.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Reyes</i>, 136 AD3d 443</a> [2016]; <i>see also People v Cruz</i>, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], <i>appeal dismissed </i>446 US 901 [1980]). Furthermore, defendant admitted to the officer that he had consumed "five Corona" beers.</p><p>Defendant's present challenge to the amount of the surcharge should be raised in the sentencing court by way of a motion for resentencing (<a href="../2014/2014_02499.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Rodriguez</i>, 116 AD3d 487</a> [2014], <i>lv denied </i>24 NY3d 964 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: December 14, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 28 of 28