alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lillian E. Stafford, Appellant, *v.*Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Defendant, and Rena M. C. Braisted, as General Guardian of Albert W. Cooke, an Infant, Respondent.

*Stafford*v. *Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,*170 App. Div. 937, affirmed.

(Submitted October 17, 1918;

decided November 1, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 29, 1915, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, respondent, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. George H. Cooke, deceased, was a member of the defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in good standing during his life. Under his certificate of membership a death benefit was payable at his death to his designated beneficiary. The sole question involved was whether Albert W. Cooke, the infant son of George H. Cooke, the assured, or Lilhan E. Stafford, a sister, was the legal beneficiary. The defendant, respondent, as guardian of said Albert W. Cooke, claimed title to the fund by reason of the fact that Albert W. Cooke was designated as beneficiary in the aforesaid certificate of membership and was, therefore, entitled to the fund, in accordance with the by-laws of the defendant brotherhood. The plaintiff, appellant, claimed title to the fund-by reason of the fact that on April 9, 1912, the said George H. Cooke executed an affidavit addressed to the defendant brotherhood requesting that the beneficiary be changed from Albert W. Cook to Lilhan E. Stafford. Respondent contended that the change was not effective because not made in compliance with the by-laws which required that a transfer be made by filling out a blank form on the back of the certificate of membership. Plaintiff argued that the insured was not able to use the blank- for the' reason that the certificate was in the possession of the brotherhood and that to require him to do what under the circumstances was impossible was unreasonable.

*654
      *M. W. Van Auken*for appellant.

*Harold Milbank*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,645,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                   430,251
<INVENTORY>                                  2,261,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,744,214
<PP&E>                                       6,672,832
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,765,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,981,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,276,120
<BONDS>                                      2,632,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,831
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,005,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,981,028
<SALES>                                     13,775,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,775,597
<CGS>                                        4,864,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,864,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,026,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               292,915
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,539,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,528,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,011,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,011,120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
        

</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2480 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reauthorize the payment in lieu 

of taxes program through fiscal year 2029. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. RISCH, Mr. BENNET, and Mr. GARDNER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reauthorize the 

payment in lieu of taxes program through fiscal year 2029. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PILT Reauthorization 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, is 

9 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:37 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2480.IS S2480

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2480 IS

1 ing ‘‘fiscal year 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 

2 2019 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2010057EN.01001001.xml

| 9.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 March 2010

2010/C 57/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3662 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4420 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90240 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6794 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4628 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0490 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,578 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,34 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7084 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8681 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,0900 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0880 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4970 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4023 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6001 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9457 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9110 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 547,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,0639 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3269 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2618 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 550,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5590 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,604 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,6165 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,644 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4275 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2346 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,1050 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3662

JPY

Japanese yen

123,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4420

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90240

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6794

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4628

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0490

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,578

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,34

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7084

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8681

RON

Romanian leu

4,0900

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0880

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4970

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4023

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6001

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9457

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9110

KRW

South Korean won

1 547,28

ZAR

South African rand

10,0639

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3269

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2618

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 550,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5590

PHP

Philippine peso

62,604

RUB

Russian rouble

40,6165

THB

Thai baht

44,644

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4275

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2346

INR

Indian rupee

62,1050

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 99.1 WRITTEN
CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer of EFJ, Inc. (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to the best of each of their knowledge: a)the Companys
Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2002
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and b)information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /S/   Michael
  E. JalbertMichael E. JalbertChief Executive OfficerFebruary 28, 2003/S/   Massoud SafaviMassoud SafaviChief Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2003 The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.


---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


          We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements No. 333-20549, No. 333-65459 and No. 333-38568 of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-81384 of
Powerwave Technoloigies, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated January 17, 2002,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. for
the year ended December 30, 2001.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
February 11, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WINNIE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-318/RS-EMT

CINCINNATI INS. CO.,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

Non-party Robert Kerrigan has provided the requested information to Defendant

(Doc. 65). Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 64), therefore, is DENIED as moot. 

ORDERED on March 7, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CEO 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 amended Quarterly Report of WindTamer Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Gerald
E. Brock, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Gerald E. BrockGerald
      E. BrockChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerMay
      19, 2009





This
Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MONTHER EJAK,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00410-MP -WCS

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DAVID HARVEY, ERIC H HOLDER, JR,

JANET NAPOLITANO, MICHAEL ROZOS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 19, Report and Recommendation, recommending

that this matter be dismissed as moot, since petitioner has been released. The time for filing

objections has passed, and none have been filed. The Court agrees that the matter has become

moot and that petitioner has abandoned this case by failing to keep the Court apprised of his

current address. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This case is dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00410-MP-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 1
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 DRDGOLD Limited (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel Johannes Pretorius, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his 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.





/s/ Daniel Johannes Pretorius


By:    Daniel Johannes Pretorius


Title:    Chief Executive Officer


Date:    October 30, 2023
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 1 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 2 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 3 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 4 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 5 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-26      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 To The

 RE-ESTABLISHED RETIREMENT PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF 

KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION 

(As Amended and Restated Effective as of May 1, 2012) 

THIS AMENDMENT, made and executed by Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the “Company”): 

W I T N E S S E T H 
 WHEREAS,
the Company maintains the Re-Established Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the “Plan”), which was most recently amended and restated in its entirety by an instrument effective as of May 1, 2012;
and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12.2 of the Plan, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan, from time to time, in its
discretion as long as such amendment does not cause assets of the Trust Fund to be diverted or used for purposes other than the exclusive benefit of participants, to favor highly compensated employees or to amend the Plan in a manner which would
reduce accrued benefits in violation of Section 411(d)(6) of the Code; and 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 12.2 of the
Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company has found desirable to make certain changes in order to satisfy the requirements of the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor.  

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority reserved to the Company under Section 12.2 of the Plan, the Plan be and hereby is amended as set
forth below effective as provided herein. 
 Effective June 26, 2013, Section 15.3 of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 

15.3 Governing Law. This Plan shall be regulated, construed and administered under the laws of the State of North Carolina to the
extent that such laws are not pre-empted or superseded by the laws of the United States of America. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to the Re-Established Retirement Plan for Hourly
Employees of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation is hereby properly executed on the 27th day of August, 2014. 
  

			
	KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ D. Michael Parker

		 	 Senior Vice President, Finance

On behalf of the Board of Directors




  
 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL J. LEVITAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv398/LAC/MD

DAVID MORGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

commenced this action on October 12, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint (doc.

1) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2). Because plaintiff’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient in that plaintiff failed to include a copy

of his prisoner trust account statement, this court entered an order on October 27,

2010 directing plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee or correct the deficiency in his

in forma pauperis application, within twenty-eight days (doc. 4). Plaintiff was warned

that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this case

be dismissed. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the order. Accordingly, on December 13, 2010, this

court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why

this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court

(doc. 5). That deadline has passed, and plaintiff has neither responded to the order,

nor complied with the court’s October 27, 2010 order.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s

failure to comply with an order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of January, 2011. th

 

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv398/LAC/MD
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Intersil Corporation (Intersil), that the Annual Report of Intersil on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of Intersil. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K.



|                    |  |     |  |                                         
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 3, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard M. Beyer                    
|                    |  |     |  | Richard M. Beyer Chief Executive
Officer
|                    |  |    
|Date: March 3, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ David A. Zinsner                    
|                    |  |     |  | David A. Zinsner Chief Financial
Officer
#### STATE v. CLONTZ

No. 288 PC.

No. 120 (Fall Term).

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 639.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 August 1981.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 3:01cr83/LAC

3:05cv130/LAC/MD

KARL BETTERTON

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on April 15, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, the Recommendation is adopted as

the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 (doc. 308) is summarily DISMISSED as untimely.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 2005.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00083-LC-MD Document 313 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 3

 1 Plaintiff is well aware of this requirement and has been advised of the necessity to

comply with Rule 5.1(H) in numerous prior cases she has filed in this Court. See, e.g.,

cases 4:09cv84-RH/WCS; 4:08cv225-SPM/WCS; 4:08cv187-SPM/WCS; 4:07cv527-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:09cv339-RH/WCS

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is pro se, submitted a civil rights complaint on August 31, 2009. 

Doc. 1. Plaintiff has also submitted an amended complaint, doc. 3, and statement of

facts, docs. 4, 5 and 6. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this case nor did she submit

an in forma pauperis motion with the required supporting financial affidavit. Under the

local rules of this Court, a civil action "shall not be filed by the clerk until the fee is paid

as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, unless the complaint . . . is accompanied by a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.1(H). Because Plaintiff

neither paid the fee nor filed an in forma pauperis motion, this case should be

dismissed.1 
Page 2 of 3

SPM/WCS; 4:07cv521-SPM/WCS; and 4:07cv510-SPM/WCS.

Case No. 4:09cv339-RH/WCS

Moreover, federal law permits a United States District Court to dismiss a case

filed in forma pauperis, if it is satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. The

Supreme Court has recognized two types of cases which may be dismissed, sua

sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct.

1827, 1833, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). The first class are "claim(s) based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory," and the second class contain "claims whose factual

contentions are clearly baseless." Id. This case lacks both an arguable basis in law

and is clearly removed from reality. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir.

1990), citing Neitzke. Plaintiff's allegations are incomprehensible and fit both classes of

cases which may be dismissed sua sponte. 

Even though Plaintiff has not yet been granted in forma pauperis status, there is

no need to delay dismissal of this case only to resolve the issue of the filing fee. Sua

sponte dismissal of the complaint is appropriate because it is frivolous and nonsensical.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 11, 2009.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations

within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv339-RH/WCS

respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure

to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.