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

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) 

MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) 

PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) 

ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 

Telephone (602) 514-7500 

JOHN J. KUCERA (Cal. Bar No. 274184, john.kucera@usdoj.gov) 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1200 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Telephone (213) 894-3391 

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) 

Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

5. Dan Hyer,

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX- SMB

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

SENTENCING 

(Fifth Request) 

The United States of America hereby requests this Court to continue the sentencing 

currently set for January 25, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. for Defendant Dan Hyer, to a date occurring 

after the conclusion of the trial in this case, which is currently set for January 12, 2021. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1038 Filed 07/09/20 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

Defendant Hyer’s plea agreement contemplates that he will not be sentenced until 

the conclusion of his cooperation. 

Counsel for the Defendant has no objection to this motion.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of July, 2020.

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Kevin Rapp

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

JOHN J. KUCERA

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKI

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this same date, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

K C Maxwell 

Maxwell Law PC 

23 Geary St., Ste. 600

San Francisco, CA 94108 

415-494-8887 

Email: kcm@kcmaxlaw.com

Attorneys for defendant Dan Hyer

s/Marjorie Dieckman

US Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1038 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v.
NELSON ALVARADO-LENHART, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 947 MAL 2013 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Unpublished Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1733 MDA 2012 filed September 16, 2013, vacating the Judgment of Sentence of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas at No. CP-06-CR-0003854-2011 filed September 6, 2012

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of August, 2014,the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED , the decision of the Superior Court is VACATED , and the matter is REMANDEDto the Superior Court for reconsideration under Commonwealth v. Lucarelli , 971 A.2d 1173 (Pa. 2009) (waiver of right to counsel is intentional and voluntary relinquishment of known right; forfeiture of right to counsel, by contrast, does not require that defendant intend to relinquish right but may result from defendant's extremely serious or dilatory conduct). The remand is not to be construed as an expression of view on whether, in fact, respondent forfeited the right to counsel.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN HAMILTON, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF ROMULUS and MICHAEL

ONDEJKO,

and

VAN BUREN TOWNSHIP, MARC

ABDILLA, BRYCE KELLEY, and JOHN

DOE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, 

Defendants.

/

Case No. 01-74698

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order entered and filed on August

18, 2009, judgment is entered in favor of the defendants’ and the case is DISMISSED as

to the above named defendants only. 

DAVID WEAVER

Dated: August 21, 2009 By: s/Julie Owens 

Deputy Clerk

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, August 21, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:01-cv-74698-AC Doc # 334 Filed 08/21/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 8915
#### Sean FORD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 65517.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 15, 1994.

Barbara Hoppe, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.

Dated: August 14, 2008



By:

/s/ Anthony A. DiTonnoAnthony A. DiTonnoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. GhiglieriChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-cr-20583

GREGORY MAPP,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND § 2255 HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION

Defendant Gregory Mapp was convicted of two counts of drug trafficking. On

October 6, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions, and Defendant filed a motion

to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on July 18, 2012. Defendant now

moves to amend his § 2255 habeas corpus application to include a new claim of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court will grant the motion.

Amending a habeas corpus petition “is governed by the ‘rules of procedure

applicable to civil actions.’” Hodges v. Rose, 570 F.2d 643, 649 (6th Cir. 1978) (citing 28

U.S.C. § 2242). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that pleadings may be

amended with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2). A § 2255 application can be amended with a new claim if the motion is timely

filed within one year of the date on which the conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. §

2255(f)(1). When determining finality, if

a federal criminal defendant takes a direct appeal to the court of appeals, his

judgment of conviction becomes final for § 2255 purposes upon the

expiration of the 90-day period in which the defendant could have petitioned
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\08-20583.MAPP.Granting.Amd.Habeas.App.wpd

2

for certiorari to the Supreme Court, even when no certiorari petition has been

filed.

Sanchez-Castellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424, 426–27 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Clay

v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003)).

Defendant’s motion to amend his § 2255 habeas corpus application was timely

filed. Defendant had ninety days from the Sixth Circuit’s judgment to petition for writ of

certiorari. Sup. Ct. R. 13. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions on

October 6, 2011, but because Defendant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari, his

convictions became final on January 6, 2012. Defendant timely moved to amend his 

§ 2255 application on July 30, 2012, within the one-year statute of limitations. 

Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that granting leave to amend will result in

any undue prejudice to Plaintiff. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to amend § 2255 habeas corpus

application [Dkt. # 68] is GRANTED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 31, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 31, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
H. Res. 962 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 10, 2009. 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of December 10, 2009, providing for further consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 4173) to provide for 

financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, 

to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for 

other purposes. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Carlos SALINAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 003-95, 004-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

March 22, 1995.

Joseph A. Connors, III, McAllen, for appellant.

Rene Guerra, Dist. Atty., and Theodore C. Hake, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*786BAIRD, Judge,

concurring to the refusal of Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review.

Although I join the Court’s decision to summarily refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review, I write separately to address appellant’s noncompliance with the Rules. Appellant’s petition does not comply with Tex.R.App.P. 202(d)(4) which provides that grounds for review shall be stated in short form without argument.1 Each of appellant’s eleven grounds for review violate Rule 202(d)(4) and on that basis alone the petition should be refused. Additionally, each ground for review contains within it reasons for review. This is also improper because reasons for review are separate and distinct from grounds for review. Tex. R.App.P. 202(d)(5).

In *DeGrate v. State,*712 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. Cr.App.1986), we stated that compliance with the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure is required before we will exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. This petition is an example of the many petitions that we summarily refuse each week for noncompliance with the Rules. Petitions filed in noncompliance foreclose the opportunity for further appellate review and amount to nothing more than a waste of the petitioner’s time and resources as well as the Court’s time and resources.

With these comments, I join the decision to refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

1

. For example, appellant's first ground for review states:

> In overruling appellant’s point of error no. 3 in his brief, the 13th Court of Appeals *reversibly erred by focusing*on the “shooting” *and ignoring*the "gun pointing” *and in not following*the stare decisis of *Mullins v. State,*767 S.W.2d 166, 169-170 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.), for the trial court should have charged the jury as to the lesser offense under V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 22.05(a) of reckless conduct in cause no. 13-93-059-CR since appellant was aware of the risk of placing Firmato Rodriguez in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and purposefully disregarded that risk *(recklessly) by pointing a firearm at or in the direction of another before shooting and firing a warning shot*at the club wall in the direction of Rodriguez, from which "pointing” conduct recklessness and danger are presumed under V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 22.05(b), and which “pointing” conduct placed Rodriguez from his own perspective in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, while Rodriguez ducked and stayed under a van adjacent to the club's entrance where in a wall block an investigator found a chip, which could have been caused by a bullet.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
30, 2004 (the Report), I Robert B. Harris, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the 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.



|               |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|March 30, 2004 |  | /s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.          
|               |  | Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.              
|               |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           43133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19617
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1567)
<INVENTORY>                                      13099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 81685
<PP&E>                                            1565
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  157017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                      104280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    157017
<SALES>                                          47845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 64894
<CGS>                                            34230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    34230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 50571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14903]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2860]


Kentucky; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on June 
1, 1996, I find that Bullitt and Spencer Counties in the State of 
Kentucky constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe 
storms, flooding, and tornadoes that occurred on May 28, 1996. 
Applications for loans for physical damages may be filed until the 
close of business on July 30, 1996, and for loans for economic injury 
until the close of business on March 3, 1997 at the address listed 
below:

U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One 
Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308

or other locally announced locations. In addition, applications for 
economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following 
contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above 
location: Anderson, Hardin, Jefferson, Nelson, and Shelby Counties in 
Kentucky, and Harrison County in Indiana.
    Interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:                                                    
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere..................     7.625
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere...............     3.875
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere..................     8.000
  Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit                
   Available Elsewhere........................................     4.000
  Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit               
   Available Elsewhere........................................     7.125
For Economic Injury: Businesses and Small Agricultural                  
 Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............     4.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 286012. 
For economic injury the numbers are 891600 for Kentucky and 891700 for 
Indiana.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 4, 1996.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-14903 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey et al.,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

As set forth on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference held on July 27, 2023, 

IT IS ORDERED that of the four hundred forty-four (444) prospective jurors who 

completed questionnaires, three hundred twenty (320) are stricken for cause. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jurors twenty-five (25) and three hundred sixtysix (366) were stricken for cause on August 4, 2023. The following one hundred twentytwo (122) prospective jurors remain:

Juror Number

1. 8

2. 23

3. 65

4. 135

5. 136

6. 148

7. 159

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 6
- 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

8. 177

9. 192

10. 201

11. 206

12. 220

13. 237

14. 260

15. 280

16. 312

17. 316

18. 324

19. 327

20. 336

21. 337

22. 350

23. 389

24. 410

25. 428

26. 429

27. 430

28. 431

29. 433

30. 457

31. 474

32. 509

33. 545

34. 557

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 6
- 3 -

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

35. 559

36. 565

37. 582

38. 611

39. 622

40. 623

41. 654

42. 676

43. 678

44. 686

45. 691

46. 707

47. 710

48. 730

49. 738

50. 818

51. 825

52. 826

53. 849

54. 863

55. 864

56. 874

57. 876

58. 886

59. 930

60. 939

61. 942

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

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

62. 945

63. 958

64. 1018

65. 1028

66. 1032

67. 1087

68. 1093

69. 1114

70. 1161

71. 1164

72. 1172

73. 1193

74. 1204

75. 1215

76. 1224

77. 1241

78. 1242

79. 1299

80. 1316

81. 1331

82. 1356

83. 1364

84. 1370

85. 1397

86. 1398

87. 1412

88. 1417

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

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

89. 1449

90. 1486

91. 1505

92. 1525

93. 1539

94. 1558

95. 1575

96. 1582

97. 1585

98. 1594

99. 1615

100. 1618

101. 1702

102. 1709

103. 1710

104. 1718

105. 1723

106. 1747

107. 1754

108. 1756

109. 1757

110. 1762

111. 1772

112. 1787

113. 1792

114. 1800

115. 1807

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

116. 1809

117. 1813

118. 1824

119. 1844

120. 1858

121. 1859

122. 1873

Dated this 7th day of August, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1678 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 6
MICHIGAN

PROTECTION & ADVOCACY

SERVICE, INC. April 6, 2009

Kathy McGeathy

1 “PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES”

President
Flint Robert A. Boonin

Tom Landry Butzel Long

Ast Vice President 350 S. Main Street, Suite 300
Highland

Kate Pew Wolters
2nd Vice President
Grand Rapids

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Case No. 2:08-cv-14922

Ronald D. Bush, I
Secretary
Detroit

Mark Lezotte
Treasurer
Detroit

Dear Mr. Boonin,

Elmer L. Cerano, Executive Director

RE: Fialka-Feldman v Oakland University Board of Trustees

My client requested a copy of his housing file from the university housing

department. The staff told him that because this matter is in litigation they would

Pamela Bellamy, Ph.D
Immediate Past President
Lansing

Sheila Faunce
Director Emeritus
East Lansing

Robert W. Ryan
Director Emeritus
Lansing

Frederick A. Swegles
Director Emeritus
Port Huron

Sincerely,
Mark Brewer, Esq.
Mt. Clemens

Donna DePalma
Pinckney

Attorney
Michelle Huerta
Prse
sie: CED/vIl
Ann E. Manning
Clarkston,

Susan L. Odgers, Ph.D., ABD
‘Traverse City

Stoney Polman
Lansing

Ernest A. Reynolds
Roscommon

Frederick F. (Rick) Swegles, Esq.
Port Huron

Livonia Office:

Livonia Corporate Towers

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 « Livonia, MI 48152-2116
248.473.2990

1.800.414.3956 (Toll Free)

248.473.4104 (Fax)

Main Office:

4095 Legacy Parkway, Suite 500 * Lansing, MI 48911-4263
517.487.1755 (Voice or TTY)

800.288.5923 (formation and Referral)

517.487.0827 (Fax)

MPAS web site: www.mpas.org

not give him the file. Therefore, I am requesting that you send me a copy of Mr.
Micah Fialka-Feldman’s rental application and housing file.

Additionally, I would like to set a mutually agreeable time or deadline to make
the initial disclosures required in F.R.C.P., Rule 26(a). Please let me know if
April 17, 2009, is an agreeable date for you. If there is any information you may
need, please let me know.

D..

Chris E. Davis

Marquette Office:
129 W. Baraga Ave., Suite A * Marquette, MI 49855-4644
906.228.5910

866.928.5910 (Toll Free)

906.228.9148 (Fax)