alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 3/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 335 Filed 10/05/18 Page 1 of 1
WO 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Government’s Application for Order Regarding Criminal 

Forfeiture of Property in Government Custody (the “Motion”). (Doc. 282) The Motion 

was fully briefed on September 27, 2018. (Docs. 285, 326) Through the pleadings, it has 

come to the Court’s attention that the criminal warrants requested by the Government 

through the Motion address the same property that is the subject of several civil seizure 

warrants issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a related 

case. It has also come to the Court’s attention that several Defendants have moved to 

vacate these civil seizure warrants (Doc. 6, 2:18-cv-06742-RGK), and that the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California plans to issue a ruling on the Defendants’ 

challenge.1

 (Doc. 6, 2:18-cv-06742-RGK) At this time, the Court declines to rule on the 

relief sought in the Motion until the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 

rules on the Defendants’ challenge to the civil seizure warrants. 

 1

 The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a docket entry in which it cancelled the motion hearing scheduled for September 24, 2018 and instead 

stated that it will issue a ruling on the pleadings. (Doc. 58, 2:18-cv-06742-RGK) 

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 340 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 2
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 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied without prejudice until the related 

Motion for Release of Certain Untainted Funds (Doc. 6) filed by Defendant James Larkin 

in In the Matter of the Seizure of: Any and all funds held in Republic Bank of Arizona 

Accounts xxxx1889, xxxx2592, xxxx1938, xxxx2912, and xxxx2500, Case No. 2:18-cv06742-RGK is resolved; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of a 

ruling on the pending Motion for Release of Certain Untainted Funds (Doc. 6) filed by 

Defendant James Larkin in In the Matter of the Seizure of: Any and all funds held in 

Republic Bank of Arizona Accounts xxxx1889, xxxx2592, xxxx1938, xxxx2912, and 

xxxx2500, Case No. 2:18-cv-06742-RGK, the Government may renew its application for 

an order seeking criminal forfeiture of property as it sees fit. 

 Dated this 15th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 340 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1059-11 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1059-11 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
Interim Deciaion *1607 

Mi=Ea of CBECING 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-15901019 

Decided by Board Tithe 28, 1966 

Motion to reopen deportation proceedings to permit application for classification as a refugee under the proviso to section 203(a) (T), Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended by P.L. 59-236, and for adjustment of status 

pursuant to section 245 of the Act, is denied since a record of permanent 

residence as a refugee under section 203(a) (7) can be created only in accordance with the procedures established for section 245 and respondent, a 

crewman, is statutorily ineligible for the benefits of section 246. 

CHABas: 

Order: Act of 1952--Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Nonimmigrant crewman—Remained longer than permitted. 

Respondent, a 36-year-old married male, native and citizen of 

China, admitted on August 27, 1963 as a nonimmigrant crewman, 

has remained longer than authorized. On January 27, 1964 he was 

found deportable on the ground stated ill the caption and granted 

-voluntary departure. On March 11, 1966, after the time granted to 

him for departure had expired, respondent submitted a motion to 

the special inquiry officer to reopen proceedings. Appeal from 'the 

special inquiry officer's denial (March 15, 1966) is now before us. 

The respondent sought reopening' of proceedings so that he could 

.establish that he was a refugee under section 203(a) (T) of.the Act. 

Submitted with the motion was an application for classification as 

;a refugee and an application for status as & permanent resident 

'under section 245 of the Act. Li denying the application, the special 

inquiry officer ruled that a record of permanent residence as .a refugee could be created under section 203(a) (7) of the Aet only under 

the procedures established for section 245 of the Act, that section 

.245 of the Act makes a seaman ineligible for adjustment of status, 

and that the respondent, therefore, cannot receive an adjustment as 

a refugee. counsel's contention is that a refugee in the United 

689 
Interim Decision #1607 

States should be permitted to adjust his status under section 203(a) 

(7) of the Act -without regard to the qualifications set up for an 

applicant under section 245 of the Act. 

We are bound by the regulation. It requires an applicant fdr 

refugee status to meet the requirements of 8 OM 20 (see Tai Hui 

v. Evenly, IT.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., 66 Oiv. 816, May 4, 1966, appeal 

noted). Respondent . is not eligible under section 245 of the Act. 

The appeal must be dismissed. 

ORDER: • It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

690 .
September 15, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RICHARD OHENDALSKI, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00475-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1778
ARTHUR D. MOBLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD RUDEZ; HENRY PANKIE; JOHN BAKER; DANIEL KAHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge; John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1685) Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: April 24, 1998 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur D. Mobley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, Arthur D. Mobley, appeals the district court's orders denying relief in Mobley's employment discrimination action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mobley v. Rudez , No. CA-96-1685 (D. Md. July 16, 1996; Mar. 13, 1997; May 1, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order filed, October 24, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00547

- CR

____________ RICKY HAYWOOD

- WATSO N , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1494189



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due October 23, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Beca use the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Pamela K. Knobloch , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 507-3 Filed 03/20/19 Page 1 of 40
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 of China Southern Airlines
Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tan Wan Geng, President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 26, 2013 | By:                | /s/Tan Wan Geng
|-------------------- | ------------------ | ---------------
|                     | Name: Tan Wan Geng
|                     |                   
|                     | Title: President  



* This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Richard C. THIER, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Marsha J. THIER, Respondent/Appellant.

Nos. 66536, 67520.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 18, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 23, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 24, 1995.

Anthony L. Anderson, Anderson & Preuss, Clayton, for appellant.

Richard C. Thier, Hillsboro, pro se.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment quashing a garnishment for child support payments. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the circuit court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32832-32833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16181]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 18, 1996.
    Time: 10 a.m.

[[Page 32833]]

    Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C-18, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD. 20857.
    Contact Person: Michael D. Hirsch, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-
18, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-
1000.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-16181 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0278 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2023

01/03/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0278
EXHIBIT 10.21


 


Director
Compensation Summary


 


Each director of Plains All American GP LLC who is not
an employee of Plains All American GP LLC is reimbursed for any travel, lodging
and other out-of-pocket expenses related to meeting attendance or otherwise
related to service on the board (including, without limitation, reimbursement
for continuing education expenses). Each non-employee director is currently
paid an annual retainer fee of $45,000. Mr. Armstrong is otherwise
compensated for his services as an employee and therefore receives no separate
compensation for his services as a director. In addition to the annual
retainer, each committee chairman (other than the chairman of the audit
committee) receives $2,000 annually. The chairman of the audit committee
receives $30,000 annually, and the other members of the audit committee receive
$15,000 annually, in each case, in addition to the annual retainer. During
2008, Messrs. Capobianco, Goyanes and Smith served as chairmen of the
compensation, audit and governance committees, respectively.


 


Our non-employee directors receive LTIP awards or cash
equivalent awards as part of their compensation. The LTIP awards vest annually
in 25% increments over a four-year period and have an automatic re-grant
feature such that as they vest, an equivalent amount is granted. The three
non-employee directors who serve on the audit committee each have outstanding a
grant of 10,000 units (vesting 2,500 units per year). Mr. Sinnott has
outstanding a grant of 5,000 units (vesting 1,250 per year). Upon any vesting
(other than the incremental audit committee awards), a cash payment is made to
Vulcan Capital as directed by the Vulcan designee and to an affiliate of EnCap
as directed by Mr. Petersen. Such cash payment is based on the unit value
of Mr. Sinnott’s award on the previous year’s vesting date.


 


All LTIP awards held by a director vest in full upon
the next following vesting date after the death or disability (as determined in
good faith by the board) of the director. For any ‘‘independent’’ directors (as
defined in the limited liability company agreement of Plains All American GP
LLC, and currently including Messrs. Goyanes, Smith and Symonds), the
awards also vest in full if such director (i) retires (no longer with
full-time employment and no longer serving as an officer or director of any
public company) or (ii) is removed from the board of directors or is not
reelected to the board of directors, unless such removal or failure to reelect
is for “good cause,” as defined in the letter granting the units.
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Roger Trevino, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-01-00723-07-PHX-MHM

 ORDER

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on

Supervised Release were held on July 9, 2010.

THE COURT FINDS that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and

has consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden

of proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that

he is not a flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994).

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the

court.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2010.
*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50782

DARLENE PARRA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PREMIER SALONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

El Paso Division

USDC No. EP 96 CA 483 SS

November 5, 1998

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Premier Salons International, Inc. appeals an adverse jury verdict on the issue of

discriminatory discharge of Darlene Parra. The jury returned its verdict finding that Premier had

discriminated against Parra based on her national origin by discharging her in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq (“Title VII”). The jury awarded her damages for lost wages, present and future

emotional pain and suffering, and pecuniary losses. The jury also awarded punitive damages which

the district court, upon acting on Premier’s post trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, held

was not supported by the evidence. The distri ct court also entered an order awarding Parra

attorney’s fees. Premier timely appealed to this court.
2

Appellant assigns three points of error. First, appellant claims that the district court erred in

denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law because Parra had failed to present sufficient

evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination. Next, appellant contends that the

district court’s decision not to include a jury instruction on same actor inference was error. Finally,

appellant argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law

regarding Parra’s claim for compensatory damages.

Having considered the arguments of counsel, the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we

affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons expressed by the district court in

its order granting in part and overruling in part Premier Salon’sInternational’s Renewed Motion for

Judgment as a Matter of Law.

AFFIRMED.
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

1

feder law office, p.a.

2930 e. camelback road, suite 160

phoenix, arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

fl@federlawpa.com

Bruce Feder - State Bar No. 004832

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

DEFENDANT SCOTT SPEAR’S

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT LARKIN’S

OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

REGARDING CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

OF PROPERTY IN GOVERNMENT

CUSTODY

The Defendant, Scott Spear, by and through his attorney, Bruce Feder/Feder Law Office.,

P.A., hereby joins in Defendant James Larkin's Opposition to Government's Application for Order

Regarding Criminal Forfeiture of Property in Government Custody [285] in all respects as said

Opposition applies to him. Additionally, the Government's pleading improperly seeks to

deprive Defendants of the prompt pretrial hearing they are entitled to where seizures of assets

derived from First Amendment activities occur. See, Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, 489 U.S.

466(1989); United States v. Crozier, 777 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of August, 2018.

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

/s/ Bruce Feder

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 289 Filed 08/30/18 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

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted the

foregoing to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice

of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Erin McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Rever: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Ronald London: ronnielondon@dwt.com

Janey Henze Cook: janey@henzecookemurphy.com

John Littrell: jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth Miller: kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

Michael Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Stephen M. Weiss: sweiss@karpweiss.com

Michael Kimerer: mdk@kimerer.com

Tom Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Gary Lincenberg: gsl@birdmarella.com

Ariel Neuman: aneuman@birdmarella.com

KC Maxwell: kcm@kcmaxlaw.com

David Wakukawa: dsw@kcmaxlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defense

By: /s/ A. Jones

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 289 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 2