alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   |   /s/ Ronnie L.      Steinocher                                                            |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            | Name:      Ronnie L. Steinocher                                                                           |
|            | Title:  Chief      Executive and Financial OfficerDate:   November      16, 2009 |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL J. COLLINS,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-10418

v. PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FAURECIA U.S.A. HOLDINGS, INC. MAGISTRATE MONA K. MAJZOUB

A Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER 

DISMISSING AS FRIVOLOUS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF JANUARY 4, 2011 

TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT/TO CLARIFY TAXES/FOR ATTORNEY FEES

On October 28, 2010, the parties signed a settlement agreement of $17,500 “less

applicable withholding and any deductions.” On November 5, 2010, Defendant Faurecia paid

the settlement, less the withheld required taxes and FICA – just as the settlement agreement

provided.

On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking (1) to enforce the

settlement agreement that has already been settled, (2) to have this Court provide post judgment

tax manipulations, and (3) for attorney fees, no less.

The Court finds this motion to be frivolous. The settlement has been carried out by its

terms.

Plaintiff’s motion is dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 21, 2011

2:09-cv-10418-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 01/21/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 787
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 21, 2011.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10418-PDB-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 01/21/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 788
Exhibit
15.1










Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm









The
Board of Directors


Vasogen
Inc.




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 of Vasogen Inc., filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") (File No. 333-133328, File No. 333-124226 and File No. 333-115701) of our
reports dated January 18, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of Vasogen Inc. as of November 30, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended November 30, 2007 and for the period from December 1,
1987 to November 30, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of November 30, 2007 which reports appear in the November
30, 2007 Annual Report on Form 20-F dated February 27, 2008 of Vasogen
Inc..






/s/ KPMG
LLP, Licensed Public Accountants




Toronto,
Ontario


February
27, 2008
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TRB Systems International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Byung Yim, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  October 13, 2010





|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Byung Yim                                                 |  | 
|Byung Yim                                                     |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |  |
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135891 & (3) (6) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DAVID A. MAPLES, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices
v SC: 135891 AGC: 0151/08 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. The motions for appointment of counsel and to strike the defendant’s brief are DENIED.

p0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
**Exhibit            32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT            TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the            Quarterly Report ofRing Energy, Inc.(the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the period            endedJune            30,            2006as filed with the            Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Robert            “Steve”            Owens, Chief            Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as            adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)            ThisReporton Form 10-Q for the            period endedMarch            31, 2008fully            complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act            of 1934;and                               (2) I further certify to the best of my knowledge that            the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the            financial condition and            results of            operations of Ring Energy, Inc.                                       
| Date: May 8, 2007 | By: | /s/ Robert “Steve”                        Owens            |
|-------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Robert “Steve” Owens, President

                            Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Mercantile Bank Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration Nos.
333-52620, 333-91434, 333-99853 and 333-103242) and Form S-3 (Registration Nos.
333-59154, 333-103376, 333- 108929, and 333-107814) of our reports dated
February 24, 2005 with respect to the 2004 consolidated financial statements of
Mercantile Bank Corporation, and management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which reports are included in the 2004 Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Mercantile Bank Corporation for the year ended December
31, 2004.



                                        /s/ Crow Chizek and Company LLC

                                        Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Grand Rapids, Michigan
March 10, 2005
Echo Automotive, Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






AMENDING AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT dated this 3rd day of April,
2014 

BETWEEN: 

Hanover Holdings I, LLC 

- AND - 

Echo Automotive, Inc. 

Background 

	     A. 	
      Hanover Holdings I, LLC (“Holder”) and Echo Automotive
      Inc. (“Company”) completed a transaction involving the Senior Convertible
      Note (the “Note”) dated January 3rd, 2014 in the Principal
      amount of $375,000.

	 	 
	     B. 	
      The parties desire to amend the Note on the terms and
      conditions set forth in this Amending Agreement for the Note, and any
      previous terms and conditions shall hereby be bound by the amendments set
      forth hereof.



     IN CONSIDERATION OF the
Parties agreeing to amend their obligations in the existing Note, and other
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, both Parties agree to keep, perform and fulfill the promises,
conditions and agreements below: 

Amendments 

	     1. 	
      The Agreement is amended as follows in regards to Section
      3.b.ii:

	 	 	 
		a. 	
      “New Conversion Price” means, as of any
      Conversion Date or other date of determination, the lesser price of i) a
      40% discount from the lowest daily Volume Weighted Average Price of Common
      Stock (the “VWAP”) for the ten (10) trading days pricing to the day that
      the Holder requests conversion or ii) ”Conversion Price” as stated
      in the Note.

	 	 	 
		b. 	
      All terms, conditions and rights afforded pursuant to the
      conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.

	 	 	 
		c. 	
      For purposes of clarity, the failure of the Company to
      file a registration statement under Section 12 of the Note and per the
      Registration Rights Agreement (as defined in the Note) is not deemed an
      “Event of Default” under the Note.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have caused this agreement to be duly executed by an officer thereunto duly
authorized, as of the date first written above. 

	Hanover Holdings I, LLC 	 	Echo Automotive Inc. 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
	 
	 
	___________________________
	 	 	 
	Joshua Sason 	 	Name: Patrick van den Bossche
	Managing Member 	 	Title: COO, Managing Director
MIE 310 Order of Reference to a Magistrate JudgeRev. 3/98)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant(s),

/

Case Number: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Virginia M. Morgan for the following purpose(s):

# Hearing and Determination pursuant to (28 USC 636 (B)(1)(A)) on:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery filed 12/18/09

DATED: 12/22/09 S/Victoria A. Roberts

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I certify that a copy of this order was served upon attorneys of record and Magistrate

Judge Morgan on the above date by electronic filing.

S/Carol A. Pinegar

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 23 Filed 12/22/09 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

22 CFR Part 126

[Public Notice 2386]


Amendment to the List of Proscribed Destinations

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic 
in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to reflect that it is the policy of the 
United States to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and imports of 
defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in 
Afghanistan. This amendment formalizes a policy the U.S. has had in 
place since 1992 to deny import and export licenses for articles and 
services originating in or destined for Afghanistan due to the ongoing 
civil war in that country.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph L. Novak, Office of Arms Transfer and Export Control Policy, 
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202-736-
7996).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State is amending the ITAR 
to reflect that it is the policy of the United States, pursuant to 
Sec. 126.1, to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and imports of 
defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in 
Afghanistan. Requests for licenses or other approvals for Afghanistan 
involving items covered by the Munitions List (22 CFR part 121) will be 
reviewed with a presumption of disapproval.
    This amendment to the ITAR involves a foreign affairs function of 
the United States and thus is excluded from the major rule procedure of 
Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193) and the procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553 
and 554. This final rule does not contain a new or amended information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 126

    Arms and munitions, Exports.

    Accordingly, under the authority of Section 38 of the Arms Export 
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and Executive Order 11958, as amended, 22 
CFR subchapter M is amended as follows:

PART 126--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Arms Export Control Act, 
Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 
2797); E.O. 11958, 41 FR 4311; E.O. 11322, 32 FR 119; 22 U.S.C. 
2658; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28206.


Sec. 126.1  [Amended]

    2. Section 126.1 is amended by adding ``Afghanistan,'' immediately 
prior to ``Armenia'' in paragraph (a).

    Dated: June 10, 1996.
Lynn E. Davis,
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security 
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16360 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND

 DECEMBER, 2009, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of November and

December, 2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such

notice, counsel should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is

counsel's responsibility in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk,

Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise

notified, this Court commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-10525 TRUSTEES OF THE BRICKLAYERS PENSION TRUST FUND, ET.AL V. 

 DESANTIS CONSTRUCTION CO.

2. 09-10832 ARNOLD V. CITIZENS FIRST BANCORP

3. 09-10347 HASSAN V. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING

4. 09-11282 DANIEL V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.

5. 07-10805 HUMPHRIES V. OAKLAND COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

6. 08-14467 FLANAGAN V. STEWART, ET.AL

7. 08-14291 MILLS V. RODABAUGH, ET.AL

 09-10921 

8. 08-14886 PENNSYLVANIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. CITY OF RIVER ROUGE

9. 09-11691 CLEVELAND V. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:08-cv-14467-PJD-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 10/01/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 93
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 359

To restore the term of patents, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr.

WALKER, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. BONO, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. DELAY, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.

PAXON, Mr. COX, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of

Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr.

POMBO, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. ROTH, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mr. BUNNING of

Kentucky, Mr. PACKARD, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr.

MCKEON, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. METCALF, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

CHRISTENSON, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. WALSH, Mr. KIM, Mr.

BLUTE, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts,

Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. FRISA, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mrs.

MORELLA, Mr. KLINK, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr.

BROWN of Ohio, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. FORBES, Mr. NADLER, Mr. FILNER,

Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the term of patents, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PATENT TERMS.

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Effective on the date of the en5 actment of this Act, section 154 of title 5, United States
2

•HR 359 IH

1 Code, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements

2 Act, is amended—

3 (1) in paragraph (2) of subsection (a), by strik4 ing ‘‘and ending’’ and all that follows in that para5 graph and inserting ‘‘and ending—

6 ‘‘(A) 17 years from the date of the grant

7 of the patent, or

8 ‘‘(B) 20 years from the date on which the

9 application for the patent was filed in the Unit10 ed States, except that if the application con11 tains a specific reference to an earlier filed ap12 plication or applications under section 120,

13 121, or 365(c) of this title, 20 years from the

14 date on which the earliest such patent applica15 tion was filed,

16 whichever is later.’’;

17 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol18 lows:

19 ‘‘(b) PATENT DISCLOSURE.—In the event that a con20 tinuing patent application is filed that claims the benefit

21 of the filing date of a prior application that was filed more

22 than 60 months earlier, notices of the original patent ap23 plication and of the continuing patent application shall be

24 published and the public shall be permitted to inspect and
3

•HR 359 IH

1 copy the original patent application and the continuing

2 patent application.’’; and

3 (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘shall be

4 the greater of the 20-year term as provided in sub5 section (a), or 17 years from grant’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘shall be the term provided in subsection (a)’’.

7 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 534(b) of the

8 Uruguay Round Agreements Act is amended by striking

9 paragraph (3).

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2013

d1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147368

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147368

COA: 314944

Bay CC: 98

- 001264

- FH;

RICHARD CONRAD WITBRODT, 98

- 001265

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considere d, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
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., 

 Defendants. 

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB 

ORDER 

Based on the United States’ Motion For Leave To Exceed Page Limit, and good 

cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Motion. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ Response to Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which was lodged with the Motion for Leave, shall be 

deemed properly filed. 

 Dated this 21st day of June, 2019. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 648 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT HOARD IV,

Petitioner, Case Number: 09-10604

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

PAUL KLEE,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Robert Hoard VI filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that

his state drug and firearms convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to present a defense, to the effective assistance of

counsel, and to a fair trial. On March 22, 2012, the Court found that his claims lacked merit and

denied the petition. On the same day, the Court entered an order denying a certificate of

appealability. Presently, the matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for a certificate

of appealability. 

The Court has denied a certificate of appealability already; therefore, it will treat the

petitioner’s motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s March 22, 2012 order denying

certificate of appealability. A motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(h)(1) when the moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the

parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or

plain. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations

omitted). 

2:09-cv-10604-DML-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 04/30/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 843
-2-

The defendant has not presented any evidence of a palpable defect that misled the Court.

Instead, the defendant’s motion merely revisits issues already decided by the Court. Therefore, the

Court will deny the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. If the petitioner wishes to pursue his

appeal, he “may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability

[dkt. #20] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 30, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on April 30, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-10604-DML-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 04/30/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 844