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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOYLE DEAN HARTLINE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16725 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00635-KJM-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Doyle Dean Hartline appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We review for an 

abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal as a sanction under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37(b). Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

(9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hartline’s action 

because Hartline failed to produce documents in compliance with the district 

court’s discovery order despite receiving multiple extensions of time to respond to 

discovery requests and being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal. 

See id. at 130-32 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing under 

Rule 37(b)). 

AFFIRMED1. 

 

1

In making this decision, we reviewed Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 10.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Kathy Ordoñez, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Celera Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Celera Corporation. 

Date: November 10, 2008
# C_2011050EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 February 2011

2011/C 50/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3510 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,12 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4563 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84190 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7325 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3073 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8275 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,325 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,77 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7053 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9093 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2492 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1425 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3507 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3328 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5248 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7931 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7293 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 513,00 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8147 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8963 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4080 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 008,79 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1158 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,818 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,6080 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,395 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2542 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3809 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,4980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3510

JPY

Japanese yen

113,12

DKK

Danish krone

7,4563

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84190

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7325

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3073

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8275

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,325

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,77

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7053

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9093

RON

Romanian leu

4,2492

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1425

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3507

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3328

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5248

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7931

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7293

KRW

South Korean won

1 513,00

ZAR

South African rand

9,8147

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8963

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4080

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 008,79

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1158

PHP

Philippine peso

58,818

RUB

Russian rouble

39,6080

THB

Thai baht

41,395

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2542

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3809

INR

Indian rupee

61,4980

---

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

1

Source

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 2, 2005 (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: March 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR                
|                    |  |     |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                    |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
# C_2011008EN.01000101.xml

| 13.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5964 — TPV/Philips Branded Monitors and Colour TVS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 8/01

On 9 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5964. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5964. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MONTANEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv65/MCR/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated February 13, 2012 (doc. 14). 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). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, 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. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, this action is DISMISSED,

and the clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL STEINBERG, MIRIAM STEINBERG,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00236-MP-GRJ

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court for a telephone status conference held on June 9, 2011. 

Previously, the Court adopted the parties Joint Report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and set the end of

discovery for May 27, 2011. The Court also kept the other deadlines from the Initial Scheduling

Order, as requested by the parties. Thus, dispositive motions are currently due not later than 20

days after May 27, 2011. However, the parties have indicated that they are discussing

settlement. Accordingly, the Court will stay this case to allow settlement discussions. The Clerk

is directed to return this file to the Court’s attention on July 1, 2011, if settlement has not yet

been effected.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00236-MP-GRJ Document 30 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2009279EN.01000402.xml

| 19.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5626 — ADECCO/SPRING)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 279/03

On 16 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5626. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5626. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cr-6-RS-EMT

 5:12-cv-60-RS-EMT

JESUS V. HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62). No 

objections were filed. I have reviewed the report and recommendation de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

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

and incorporated in this Order.

2. The Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 32) is DENIED.

4. The certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner did 

not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on April 1, 2014.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cr-00006-RS-EMT Document 65 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DRAYTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16846

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03056-DMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 10, 2022** 

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, W. FLETCHER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

John Drayton appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the

FILED

MAY 12 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social

Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err in evaluating the medical

record, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity

(“RFC”) determination. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.

2005) (affirming the RFC where the ALJ “applied the proper legal standard and his

decision is supported by substantial evidence”). 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination, at step four, that

Drayton could perform his past relevant work as actually performed. See

Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008)

(setting out the standard). 

The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount

Drayton’s testimony, citing factors including lack of corroborating objective

medical evidence, inconsistent claimant testimony, and inconsistent behavior. See

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (the ALJ considers a claimant’s

statements “in relation to the objective medical and other evidence”); Carmickle,

533 F.3d at 1161 (an ALJ may reject a claimant’s testimony in favor of a doctor’s

2
contradictory opinion); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (ALJ

properly considered a lack of corroborating medical evidence as one factor in the

credibility determination); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.

2001) (ALJ properly discounted testimony based on claimant’s testimony and

physician’s observations of inconsistent symptom behavior). 

AFFIRMED.

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LE DISCOUNT SEAFOOD, INC.;

NAMTHI LE; MORGAN KIRCKLAND;

TOM WADE, INC. d/b/a NAUTICAL

YACHT; and EDDIE BURGER d/b/a

H2O OUTFITTERS, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv106/RS-MD

BP, PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP

CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA,

INC.; BP COMPANY NORTH AMERICA,

INC.; ANDARKO PETROLEUM CORP.;

MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC; TRANSOCEAN,

LTD.; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE 

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; TRANSOCEAN

DEEPWATER, INC.; HALLIBURTON ENERGY

SERVICES, INC.; CAMERON INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON

CORPORATION; and M-I, LLC,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by the Motions For Extension Of Time (Docs. 44, 45, & 48)

is granted. See Order (Doc. 60).

ORDERED on June 14, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Real
Goods Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Erik Zech, Chief Financial 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) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 17, 2008



/s/ Erik ZechErik ZechPresident and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1996 COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BODY BILT SEATING INC. AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          56,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,013,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,696,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,995,379
<PP&E>                                       2,967,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                 541,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,486,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,302,321
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,438,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,486,949
<SALES>                                     17,578,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,578,210
<CGS>                                        9,325,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,002,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             139,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,433,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,377,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,377,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-cv-452-SPM-WCS

PROCEEDS OF LAWSUIT UP TO 

$337,000.00,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation (doc. 9). The Claimant has been mailed a copy and has

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. 9) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion for decree of forfeiture (doc. 8) is granted.

3. The settlement agreement is approved, and the parties are directed to

Case 4:10-cv-00452-SPM-WCS Document 10 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 2
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-sixth day of July, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00452-SPM-WCS Document 10 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 2
[No. 1693.]

#### B. GERBER, Petitioner, *v.*THE JUSTICE COURT OF TONOPAH TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF NYE, STATE OF NEVADA, and J. P. BRISSELL, Justice of the Peace Presiding in said Court, Respondents.

ORIGINAL proceeding. *Certiorari*by B. Gerber to review his conviction of a misdemeanor before the Justice Court of Tonopah Township, Nye County, State of Nevada.

Writ dismissed.

*A. R. Needles*and *N. P. Moran,*for Petitioner.

*James G. Sweeney,*Attorney-General, and *W. B. Pittman,*District Attorney of Nye County, Nevada, for Respondents.

By the Court,

NOROROSS, J.:

This is an original proceeding in *certiorari.*The questions involved in this case are identical with the case of *Abraham Chapman*v. *Above-Named Respondents*(No. 1692), 29 Nev. 154, *ante.*

For the reasons stated in the last-mentioned ease, it is ordered that the writ be dismissed.

Talbot, J.: I concur.

Fitzgerald, C. J.: I dissent.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT LEE MILHOUSE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv115/MCR/EMT

ROGERS MILHOUSE,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated April 21, 2011 (Doc. 10). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, 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. Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and this case 

is DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00115-MCR-EMT Document 11 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 1