alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HARRY M. HICKS v. THOMAS G. LANE, Administrator of the Estate of BRUCE SISTRUNK, Deceased.

(Filed 18 March 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, J.,*August 12, 1963, Schedule “A” Session of MecKleNbueg.

Plaintiff’s action for damages for personal injuries and property damage, and defendant’s counterclaim for damages for the wrongful death of his intestate, grow out of a collision that occurred Sunday, May 7, 1961, about 12:20 a.m., on The Plaza, a street in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, between a 1959 Chevrolet station wagon operated by plaintiff and a 1957 Ford operated by Bruce Sistrunk, defendant’s intestate.

Issues arising on the pleadings were answered as follows: “1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the deceased, Bruce Sistrunk, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: Yes. 2. What amount of damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant for; A. Property Damage? ANSWER: 1500. B. Personal Injuries? ANSWER: 4071.40. 3. Was the death of Bruce Sistrunk caused by the negligence of the plaintiff, as alleged in the Counterclaim? ANSWER: No. 4. Did the plaintiff operate his automobile heedlessly and in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of others, as alleged in the Counterclaim? ANSWER: No. 5. What damages, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff? ANSWER: None.”

The court, in accordance with the verdict, entered judgment that plaintiff have and recover of defendant the sum of $5,571.40, that defendant be taxed with the costs, and that defendant recover nothing of plaintiff on his counterclaim.

Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Sanders & Walker and J. Howard Bunn, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.*

*Jones, Hewson ■& Woolard for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The two vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions. The collision occurred on the portion of The Plaza for northbound traffic. It is conceded that the negligence of the driver of the southbound vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the collision and its tragic consequences.

Plaintiff was the sole occupant of the Chevrolet station wagon. He testified he could not remember anything from 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, May 6, 1961, until he “became awake” in the hospital the following Tuesday. Sistrunk was the sole occupant of the 1957 Ford.

*490Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show his Chevrolet station wagon was the northbound car. Defendant offered evidence tending to show the Ford operated by Sistrunk was the northbound car. Whether plaintiff or Sistrunk was the driver of the southbound vehicle was the crucial controverted fact. This question was resolved by the jury in plaintiff’s favor.

After careful consideration of defendant’s assignments of error, the conclusion reached is that none discloses prejudicial error or merits particular discussion. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.
99-7









Organizational Structure



The following is a flow chart of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries as of the most recent financial year-end.









Aspen Group Resources Corporation

Ontario Corporation

(Continued under Yukon)



|                                                                    |                                                                  |                                                                      |                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    |                                                                  |                                                                      |                                                                
|Cotton Valley Operating company
Texas Corporation
100% wholly owned | Aspen Energy Group, Inc.
Nevada Corporation
100% wholly owned    | Aspen Endeavour Resources Inc.
Alberta Corporation
100% wholly owned | Aspen Minerals Group, Inc.
Nevada Corporation
100% wholly owned
|                                                                    | United Cementing & Acid Co
Kansas Corporation
100% wholly owned. |                                                                      |                                                                



C#
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5349 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5349

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1325 Autumn Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Judge Russell B. 
                    Sugarmon Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGE RUSSELL B. SUGARMON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1325 Autumn Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Judge Russell B. Sugarmon Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Judge 
Russell B. Sugarmon Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5349

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1325 Autumn Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Judge Russell B. 
                    Sugarmon Post Office Building''.
```
Page 1 of 2

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANITA J. CRAWFORD, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv222-RS-WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending is Plaintiff's Petition for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) representing attorney fees in the amount of

$2,062.50. Doc. 16. Defendant has no objection. Doc. 17. In accordance with Astrue

v. Ratliff, U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the EAJA fee should be

made payable to Plaintiff, not to Plaintiff's attorney. Since the fee was assigned to

Plaintiff's attorney, Defendant has no objection to payment of the fee to Plaintiff's

attorney so long as Plaintiff has no debt to the United States, and will offset any such

debt before payment.

Case 5:10-cv-00222-RS-WCS Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Plaintiff’s Petition for attorney’s fees, docs. 16, be GRANTED and the

Commissioner be directed to pay Plaintiff's attorney $2,062.50 as a reasonable EAJA

attorney's fee and allow the Commissioner to offset from this amount any debt owed by

the Plaintiff to the United States that may be identified by the Department of Treasury.

IN CHAMBERS on October 19, 2011.

 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 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 5:10cv222-RS/WCS

Case 5:10-cv-00222-RS-WCS Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MEYER, Individually

and On Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-452/RS-EMT

THE ST. JOE COMPANY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Joint Motion Requesting Relief from the Initial Scheduling Order 

(Doc. 29). 

Plaintiffs seek clarification as to whether the “Attorneys’ Fee Records” provision 

of the Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 14, Para. 9) applies in this case because this may be 

a common fund case where attorneys’ fees are awarded on a percentage basis. 

In awarding attorneys' fees calculated as a percentage of a common fund, district 

courts “should articulate specific reasons for selecting the percentage upon which the 

attorneys' fee award is based. The district court's reasoning should identify all factors

upon which it relied and explain how each factor affected its selection of the percentage 

of the fund awarded as fees.” Camden I Condominium Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 

775 (11th Cir. Fla. 1991). Specifically, the factors articulated in Johnson v. Georgia 

Highway Express, Inc. “continue to be appropriately used in evaluating, setting, and 
reviewing percentage fee awards in common fund cases.” Id. (citing Johnson, 488 F.2d 

714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974)). The Johnson factors include, among other things, the time 

and labor required and the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to 

acceptance of the case. Id. 

Because the time expended by counsel may be relevant to the appropriate 

percentage basis of attorneys’ fees, the Initial Scheduling Order’s “Attorneys’ Fee 

Records” provision remains in effect. 

The Joint Motion Requesting Relief from the Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 29) is 

DENIED to the extent that is seeks relief from the “Attorneys’ Fee Records” 

requirement. 

ORDERED on January 18, 2011

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                           15,555,189
<SECURITIES>                     10,407,209
<RECEIVABLES>                     7,316,863
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       7,874,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 43,353,108
<PP&E>                            2,904,329
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,488,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   45,924,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             7,024,589
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             99,047
<OTHER-SE>                       38,800,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     45,924,489
<SALES>                          38,718,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 38,718,041
<CGS>                            16,360,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    30,727,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   9,468,671
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,838,389
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               6,630,282
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      6,630,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .65
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  May 18, 2009



/s/ Jeff Ritchie

Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 72341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6115]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 72341]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ecaeff8e7ead1dce1fdfae5ebfccee1e3eca0ebe1fea0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="387c594e515c676a574b4c535d4a7857555a165d5748165f574e">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to 202-395-7285. Copies of submissions may 
be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-0562.
    Form Number: AID 1570-13.
    Title: Narrative/Time-Line Report.
    Type of Submission: Renewal of Information Collection.
    Purpose: This collection is a management and monitoring report used 
by the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, 
Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. The collection will 
ascertain that grant financed programs meet authorized objectives 
within the terms of agreements between its office and the recipients, 
which are United States Organizations that sponsor overseas 
institutions.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
 Respondents: 120.
 Total annual responses: 480.
 Total annual hours requested: 960 hours.

    Dated: December 13, 2007.
Joanne Paskar,
Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative 
Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 07-6115 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2011220EN.01001601.xml

| 26.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/16

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 July 2011

2011/C 220/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4380 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88250 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1083 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1563 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7715 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,388 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 268,95 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9984 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2485 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4719 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3249 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3599 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2040 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6619 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7358 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 518,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7399 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2679 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4708 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 258,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2737 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,937 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,8354 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,795 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2311 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7757 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,8540 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4380

JPY

Japanese yen

112,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88250

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1083

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1563

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7715

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,388

HUF

Hungarian forint

268,95

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9984

RON

Romanian leu

4,2485

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4719

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3249

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3599

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2040

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6619

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7358

KRW

South Korean won

1 518,50

ZAR

South African rand

9,7399

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2679

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4708

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 258,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2737

PHP

Philippine peso

60,937

RUB

Russian rouble

39,8354

THB

Thai baht

42,795

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2311

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7757

INR

Indian rupee

63,8540

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2011083EN.01000501.xml

| 17.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 March 2011

2011/C 83/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3951 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4586 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86730 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9730 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2755 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8690 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,368 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7060 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0625 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1788 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2126 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4066 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3740 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8761 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8991 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7857 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 580,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7506 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1676 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3750 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 242,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2637 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,117 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,9640 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,453 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3179 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7828 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,9430 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3951

JPY

Japanese yen

112,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4586

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86730

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9730

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2755

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8690

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,368

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7060

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0625

RON

Romanian leu

4,1788

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2126

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4066

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3740

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8761

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8991

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7857

KRW

South Korean won

1 580,49

ZAR

South African rand

9,7506

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1676

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3750

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 242,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2637

PHP

Philippine peso

61,117

RUB

Russian rouble

39,9640

THB

Thai baht

42,453

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3179

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7828

INR

Indian rupee

62,9430

---

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

1

Source

---
#### STATE v. CRAWFORD

No. 369P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 371.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 September 1982.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LUTHER BIRL SNEED, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00077-MP -AK

TEXAS PRISON SYSTEM,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 7, Notice of Filing Deliberate Indifference by

Luther Birl Sneed, Jr. This document, apparently seeking appointment of a female attorney to

represent Mr. Sneed, as well as seeking injunctive relief against the Texas prison system, was

submitted by Mr. Sneed to ten different courts and filed by the Clerk here. This case, however,

was dismissed on July 22, 2010. If Mr. Sneed would like to pursue his remedies in court, he

must file a new lawsuit. To the extent Mr. Sneed’s request is construed as a motion for

reconsideration of the order dismissing this lawsuit, it is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### STATE v. POOLE

No. 8 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 242.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 April 1980.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JUDY BAGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv447/MCR/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 3, 2011 (Doc. 17). The parties have been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation 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, I have determined that the

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 16) is GRANTED and the

Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is REVERSED.

3. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

4. Defendant is ordered to conduct proceedings in accordance with the Report

and Recommendation (Doc. 17).

5. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:10-cv-00447-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

6. The clerk is directed to close this file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv447/MCR/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00447-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2