alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 961 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 139
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 961

                          [Report No. 111-368]

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2009

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The conference 
report shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference 
report to its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                                 House Calendar No. 139

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 961

                          [Report No. 111-368]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 9, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Guy Lester BURROUGHS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56370.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 5, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

Cheryl Rafert, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent. .

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s findings regarding mov-ant’s claims are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We, therefore, affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
form10k08ex10am.htm


    TAUBMAN
ASIA MANAGEMENT II LLC

    c/o The
Taubman Company LLC

    200 East
Long Lake Road, Suite 300

    Bloomfield
Hills, MI  48304

    


    


    


    


    


    


                                            November 25,
2008

    


    


    


    


    Mr.
Morgan Parker

    Unit
5

    179
Baroona Road

    Rosaile
QLD

    4046,
Austrialia

    


    Re:          Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company of Taubman

    Properties Asia LLC, dated January 23,
2008, between Morgan Parker

    and Taubman Asia Management II LLC (the
“Operating Agreement”)

    


    Dear Mr.
Parker:

    


    This letter shall confirm for your
records that in the event of your death, your membership interest under the
Operating Agreement, along with the put and call attached to and imbodied in
your membership interest, will continue into your estate, as your successor, and
be binding on and inure to the benefit of your estate.

    


                            Very truly
yours,

    


                            TAUBMAN ASIA
MANAGEMENT II LLC,

                            a Delaware limited
liability company

    


                            By:            /s/ Chris B.
Heaphy                                           

                            Chris B.
Heaphy

                            Its:           Authorized
Signatory

    


    


    Accepted
and Agreed:

    


    


     /s/ Morgan
Parker                                           

    MORGAN
PARKER


    
      
        
          Doc ID:
4250.1
EXHIBIT

2

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-4 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 3
From: David Morgan, Publisher

To: Mags_Everette@azd.uscourts.gov

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fed Court Rules - Records and Criminal Trial Exhibits

Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:47:11 AM

Good morning Ms Everette,

I expect to obtain counsel in this matter. I still haven't found the rule(s) which would permit

the impediments to public access created by the procedures you describe.

With whom should I communicate in the Clerk's office to learn upon which rule they rely?

See below for at least one quickly located example of exhibits made publicly available by the

court during trial - in 2006.

Please advise.

Thanks,

DMM

=======

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui

Criminal No. 01-455-A

Trial Exhibits

The following web pages link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of

U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under

seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all

exhibits online. 

The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006.

https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/101cr00455-trial-exhibits

=======

65 FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Rule 55. Records

The clerk of the district court must keep records of criminal proceedings in the form

prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The clerk

must enter in the records every court order or judgment and the date of entry.

https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?

EntityId=nbKrEPzeztc=&ParentEId=+klubNxgV0o=&EType=jY3M4CTKVHY=

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-4 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 3
(As amended Dec. 27, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 24,

1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993;

Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

-- 

-------

David M Morgan, Publisher

Capitol Times Interview - Q&A (15min video)

member of IRE - Investigative Reporters & Editors

SJP (Arizona) 2023 Awardee - Order of the Silver Key Society

25-plus years of notable journalism

Twitter @dmmCCR

U.S. Cell/Text 520-236-4051 Mexico 52-633-112-6458

use Signal and/or WhatsApp for encrypted voice, text, file transfers

Sign up for FREE local News Alerts (14,465 people get it, do you?)

the COCHISE COUNTY RECORD - Serious Local News

based next to the historic Cochise County courthouse at Bisbee, ARIZONA

More than 15,200 folks discuss the local news on FaceBook at Cochise County Courts, Crime, Justice,

Jail Reports & Politics

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-4 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 3
#### Barry L. PALATSKY, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. 65860.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 11, 1995.

*722Tammi A. Milligan, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Driver appeals the judgment of the trial court upholding the Director of Revenue’s action notifying driver that his license would be suspended for 10 years pursuant to § 302.060(9) RSMo 1994. In his supplemental brief, Driver asserts that his petition for review was premature for the reasons set forth in *Adkisson v. Director of Revenue,*891 S.W.2d 131 (Mo. banc 1995). We agree. The Director has no authority to suspend driving privileges pursuant to § 302.060(9) until Driver files an application for a new license. *Id.*at 133. Premature notice of an intent to suspend issued prior to any application for a new license is a nullity and does not give rise to any right of appeal. *Id.*Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with directions to dismiss Driver’s petition for review.
October 15, 2023

Sent via email to:

The Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Court- Pheonix Division

Sandra Day O'Connor U. S. Courthouse

401 W. Jefferson Strett, SPC 625

Courtroom 605

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

humetewa_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov 

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Unit- Phoenix Division 

cja_evoucher@azd.uscourts.gov 

Re: USA v. Michael Lacey, et al., CR18-00422-PHX-DJH

Letter of Explanation for Daily Transcript Request 

Your Honor:

CJA Defense counsel is respectfully requesting the daily transcripts for all government 

witnesses beginning October 17, 2023, through the conclusion of the government's case. I am 

requesting a daily-turnaround. The reason for the expeditious turnaround time is due to the 

numerous evidentiary rulings and guidance by the Court regarding subject matters that are or 

are not permissable. The transcripts are necessary for effective cross-examination within the 

evidentiary bounds set by this Court. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eric W. Kessler

EWK/jk

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1861-1 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of KKR Financial Holdings LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),William C. Sonneborn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey B.Van Horn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| August 4,  2010 |                                           |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                           |
|                 | /S/ WILLIAM C. SONNEBORN                       |
|                 | William C. Sonneborn                           |
|                 | *Chief Executive Officer*                      |
|                 | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                |
|                 |                                           |
|                 | /S/ JEFFREY B. VAN HORN                        |
|                 | Jeffrey B. Van Horn                            |
|                 | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
|                 | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679027.2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

[Filed concurrently with Defendants’ 

Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas]

Assigned to Hon. Susan M. Brnovich 

Courtroom 506 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083-2 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3679027.2 2 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-SMB

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

THIS COURT, having considered Defendants’ Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas 

(Docket:____); 

IF IS FURTHER ORDERED that the relevant Subpoenas Duces Tecums be 

issued for the Pretrial Production Of Documents. 

DATED: 

 Hon. Susan M. Brnovich 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1083-2 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-1205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JOSÉ PADILLA-GALARZA,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued December 12, 2003, is amended

as follows:

On page 10, second full paragraph, line 4, replace "boot

camp") with 'boot camp').

On page 10, second full paragraph, line 7, replace "six month"

with "six-month."
#### Eisenhut *v.*Morrow et al., Board of Education of Carrollton Village School District.

(No. 22953

Decided October 14, 1931.)

*262
      *Mr. Frank F. Cope, Mr. Daniel D. Oglev&e*and *Mr. Don B. Sharp,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. I. K. Scotsman,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. B. E. McDonald,*for defendants in error.

By the Court.

The sole question for determination in this case is whether or not the distance between the residence of plaintiff in error and the school “to which they” (the children) “are assigned in the district where they reside” shall be taken by direct route or by the most direct route of public travel.

Section 7735, General Code, does not specifically provide the method of measurement. However, we are of opinion that the rule announced in *Board of Education*v. *Board of Education,*58 Ohio St., 390, 50 N. E., 812, construing Section 4022a, Revised Statutes, being the original enactment of what is now Section 7735, General Code, should apply to measurements in this character of cases. In the *per curiam*in that case at page 394 of 58 Ohio State, 50 N. E., 812, 813, it is announced:

“The legislation provides for the convenience of children in attending school, and the distance is to be taken as they travel along the most direct public highway from the schoolhouse to the nearest portion of the curtilage of their residence. ’ ’

This rule was again recognized in *Board of Edur*
      *263
      *cation of Concord Special School Dist.*v. *Board of Education of Blue Ash Special School Dist.,*88 Ohio St., 549, 105 N. E., 767, affirming *Board of Education of Concord Special School Dist.*v. *Board of Education of Blue Ash Special School Dist.,*15 C. C. (N. S.), 521, 24 C. D., 213, which affirmed *Board of Education of Blue Ash Special School Dist.*v. *Board of Education of Concord Special School Dist.,*11 N. P. (N. S.), 286, 23 O. D., N. P., 698.

It is suggested that *Board of Education*v. *Board of Education,*58 Ohio St., 390, 50 N. E., 812, *supra,*may he distinguished upon the theory that in that ease property of intervening landowners had to he crossed by the children in going from their residence to the schoolhouse, in reaching the same by direct route; whereas, in the case at bar, the plaintiff in error’s children can reach the schoolhouse without going upon the land of others. We think, however, this distinction is not material, and that uniformity of application requires us to adhere to the rule of *Board of Education*v. *Board of Education,*58 Ohio St., 390, 50 N. E., 812, *supra.*

The judgments- of the courts below will therefore be reversed, and final judgment entered for plaintiff in error.

*Judgments reversed and final judgment for plaintiff in error.*

Marshall, O. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32**
















**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**




















The
      certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
      15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section 1350 of
      Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Greg Cowan, President and
      Principal Accounting Officer of Rose Explorations Inc. hereby certifies that:





1.
      the
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rose Explorations
      Inc.











Dated:
      February 12, 2007




ROSE
      EXPLORATIONS INC., Registrant




/s/
      Greg Cowan


By:
      Greg
      Cowan, President and Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 12.1
 
 
 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
 
 
 The following table sets forth our consolidated ratios:
 
 Six Months Ended June 30, 2010

(2)

Six Months Ended June 30, 2009

(2)Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (1)
1.9

44.49
 
 (1) The ratio of earnings to fixed charges was determined by dividing consolidated earnings by total fixed charges. For purposes of the ratios of earnings to fixed charges (i) earnings consist of consolidated net income before considering income taxes, minority interest and fixed charges and (ii) fixed charges consist of interest on indebtedness, interest expense on funds withheld from reinsurers and that portion of rent expense that is deemed by our management to be an appropriate interest factor. We have estimated that one-third of rent expense represents a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.
 
 (2) No preferred shares were outstanding during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, and no preferred share dividends were paid during those periods.
Exhibit K 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 3 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 4 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 5 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 6 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 7 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 8 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 9 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 10 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 11 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 12 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 13 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 14 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 15 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 16 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 17 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 18 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 19 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 20 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 22 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 23 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 24 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 25 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 26 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 27 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 28 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 29 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 30 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 31 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 32 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 33 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 34 of 35
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-11 Filed 06/14/18 Page 35 of 35
NO. 07-01-0037-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 28, 2002

	______________________________

	EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, APPELLANT

	V.

	DAVID VAWTER, ET AL., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 11TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 1999-32545; HONORABLE MARK DAVIDSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	On January 18, 2002, appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation formerly known as Exxon  Corporation filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Settlement according to agreement of the parties and in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  The motion includes a certificate of conference representing that counsel for appellees agrees to the motion, and signature of counsel for appellees by permission. 

	Without passing on the merits of the case, the Motion to Vacate Judgment is granted.  The judgment of the trial court signed on September 21, 2000, styled David Vawter and John Lazaris v. Exxon Corporation, Exxon Company, U.S.A., No. 1999-32545,  is vacated and the case is dismissed.  TRAP 42.1(a)(1); TRAP 43.2(e).  

	All costs are assessed to the parties incurring the same.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request and pursuant to settlement agreement, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.  

						Phil Johnson

						    Justice

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT M. ROWE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-14311 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

CARL R. MEYER,

F.O.C. Attorney,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING/RECONSIDERATION (#5)

Plaintiff Robert Rowe moves for rehearing/reconsideration of this court's July 7, 2007

Order dismissing his pro se in forma pauperis § 1983 claims seeking $3.0 million against

Michigan Friend of the Court Attorney Carl Meyer. The court dismissed the claims under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted in

that Rowe enjoys absolute immunity from suit in performing his adjudicative and

prosecutorial duties. Gould v. Suffety, No. 07-11235-BC, 2007 WL 1599716 (June 4, 2007)

(Ludington, J.). A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after entry of the

challenged order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(1). In seeking reconsideration, the movant must

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been mislead, and

show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(g)(3).

Rowe has failed to demonstrate a palpable error that, if corrected, would result in

a different disposition of his claims. As Rowe points out, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) more precisely

authorizes dismissal where the plaintiff seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
2

immune from such relief. Rowe's argument that Gould is distinguishable on its facts is not

persuasive. Rowe fails to articulate appropriate injunctive as against Meyer. Accordingly,

and in the absence of palpable error requiring a different disposition of Rowe's claims,

Rowe's motion for rehearing/reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2008

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

October 28, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk