alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, INC., 

a Florida Not-For-Profit corporation, and 

EFREM WALKER, Individually, 

Plaintiffs,

 Case No. 2:08-cv-14442 

vs. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES 

TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation, and 

RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES L.P., 

a Delaware Limited Partnership, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 Pursuant to the stipulation and agreement of the parties, and the Court being fully advised 

in the premises; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case shall be and the same hereby 

is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety and without costs being awarded to any party. 

 This resolves the last pending claim and closes the case. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 18, 2009 

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

on May 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

2:08-cv-14442-PJD-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 05/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 41
2

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

By: __/s Owen B. Dunn, Jr. _________ By: __/s Bernice McReynolds _________ 

Owen B. Dunn, Jr. (P66315) Robert M. Vercruysse (P21810) 

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn Jr. Bernice McReynolds (P44019) 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants 

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn Jr. VERCRUYSSE MURRAY & CALZONE 

520 Madison Avenue, Suite 330 31780 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 

Toledo, OH 43604 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

(419) 241-9661 (248) 540-8019 

dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net Rvercruysse@vmclaw.com 

 Bmcreynolds@vmclaw.com 

Date: May 12, 2009_______________ Date: May 15, 2009_________________ 

2:08-cv-14442-PJD-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 05/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 42
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

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

NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice)

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949)369-3701

Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com

 wbernstein@bklwlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

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-PHX-SMB

NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

Pursuant to LRCivP 83.3(d) Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP hereby provides notice 

of its firm name change. The firm changed its name, effective immediately to Bienert Katzman

Littrell Williams LLP from its previous firm name of Bienert | Katzman PC. The firm’s updated

name and contact information is:

 BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

 San Clemente, California 92673

 Phone: (949) 369-3700

 Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

 Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com

 wbernstein@bklwlaw.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1149 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 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

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

NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 7, 2021 BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Attorneys for James Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1149 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 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

1 Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SMB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2021, 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 CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of record.

/s/ Toni Thomas 

Toni Thomas

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1149 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 3
Fialka

Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                    Statement Regarding Computation of Ratios

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Years Ended December 31,
                                                  -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1994           1995            1996            1997
                                                       ----           ----            ----            ----
<S>                                               <C>            <C>             <C>             <C>
Fixed charges:
     Interest expense on debt                     $    273,759   $    297,228    $  6,172,421    $ 21,367,351
     Interest element of rent expense                   21,084         24,845         424,130       2,053,526
     Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiary             --        782,054       1,564,200              --
                                                  ------------   ------------    ------------    ------------
                                                  $    294,793   $  1,104,127    $  8,160,751    $ 23,420,877
                                                  ============   ============    ============    ============

Earnings:
     Consolidated net income (loss)               $    136,997   $   (504,373)   $ (3,909,749)   $(10,772,874)
     Extraordinary loss                                     --             --              --         507,515
     Preacquisition earnings (losses)                  236,300             --              --         (74,132)
     Provision (benefit) for income taxes              113,248       (302,567)     (1,233,318)     (3,324,466)
     Fixed charges                                     294,793      1,104,127       8,160,751      23,420,877
                                                  ------------   ------------    ------------    ------------
                                                  $    781,388   $    297,187    $  3,017,684    $  9,756,920
                                                  ============   ============    ============    ============

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                        2.65           0.27            0.37            0.42
                                                  ============   ============    ============    ============

Coverage Deficiency                                        N/A   $    806,940    $  5,143,067    $ 13,663,957
</TABLE>
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

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(expedited) 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 1757 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16081]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 021095B]


Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery; 1994 Survey of Atlantic Striped 
Bass Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability, and summarizes the results, 
of a survey of the Atlantic coast striped bass fisheries for 1994. The 
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (Act), requires NMFS to provide 
information on the status of the fisheries.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the survey results are available from Paul Perra, 
NOAA/NMFS/FCM3, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 14837 Silver Spring, MD 
20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Perra, (301) 713-2339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Act requires the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of 
the Interior, to conduct a comprehensive annual survey of the Atlantic 
striped bass fisheries. The following is a summary of the survey for 
1994. Management measures severely restricting the harvest of striped 
bass by commercial and recreational fisheries remained in place during 
1994, as the stocks continue to rebuild.
    The 1994 commercial harvest of striped bass was 1,923,000 lb (872.3 
mt), an increase of 13.6 percent above the landings of 1,695,000 lb in 
1993. The Chesapeake Bay area (Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac 
River) accounted for 72 percent of the 1994 commercial landings.
    The recreational catch in 1994 was an estimated 8.1 million striped 
bass, of which 591,000 were harvested (7.3 percent of the catch); the 
remaining 7.5 million were released alive. The estimated weight of the 
recreational harvest was 6.9 million lb (3,125 mt), about three and one 
half times that of the commercial harvest.
    Juvenile production in 1994 was lower than in 1993, but remained at 
levels well above the long term averages for Maryland, North Carolina, 
Virginia. The Delaware production index of 2.3, while not higher than 
the long term average, was higher than any available annual index 
recorded prior to 1989.
    Information from sampling the population of striped bass shows an 
increased relative abundance from recent year classes. Copies of the 
survey are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Dated: June 19, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16081 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEVANDER,

Plaintiff, Case Number 08-14241

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT 

The matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his response

to the defendants’ motion to limit damages. The plaintiff seeks to draw the Court’s attention to

additional case law. The Court has reviewed the motion and the defendants’ response, and will grant

the motion.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement [dkt. #44]

is GRANTED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 18, 2009

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 May 18, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 57, PageID.621 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 1
#### Frank HART, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 65944.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 17, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 15, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

*774Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J. and CRAHAN, J.

*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
      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 Quarterly Report of TELOS, INC. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pierre A. Narath,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and





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




/s/ Pierre
                A. NarathPierre A. Narath
              President
              May
                15, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0372

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

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 October 21, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2022

09/12/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0372
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN November 16, 2009

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL 08-14922

FIALKA-FELDMAN V. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET.AL

 NOTICE REGARDING MOTION PRACTICE

The following motion(s) has been filed with the Court:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

The Court reminds counsel and the parties of the provisions of Local Rule 7.1,

particularly 7.1(d) which provides:

(d) Briefing Schedule.

(1) Dispositive Motions.

 (A) Dispositive motions are:

for injunctive relief,

for judgment on the pleadings,

for summary judgment

to dismiss or quash an indictment or information

made by a defendant,

to suppress evidence in a criminal case,

to certify or decertify a class,

to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, and

to involuntarily dismiss an action.

(B) A response to a dispositive motion must be filed within 21 days

after service of the motion.

(C) If filed, a reply brief supporting a dispositive motion must be

filed within 7 days after service of the response, but not less than 3 days before oral

argument.

(2) Nondispositive Motions:

(A) Nondispositive motions are motions not listed in

LR7.1(d)(1)(A).

(B) A response to a nondispositive motion must be filed within

14 days after service of the motion.

(C) If filed, a reply brief supporting a nondispositive motion must

be filed within 7 days after service of the nondispositive

response, but not less than3 days before oral argument.

Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 38

Dockets.Justia.com
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C EC ILIO C AIC EDO-C UER O, De fe n da

nt - Appe l l ant. No. 13-50252 D.C . No. 3:12-c r-02550-DM S-4
M EM OR ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JUAN C AIC EDO-RENGIFO, De fe n da

nt - Appe l l ant. No. 13-50264 D.C . No. 3:12-c r-02550-DM S-3

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
DEC 03 2014 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : W . FLETC HER and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SETTLE, Distric t Judge
. ** Appe lla nts C e c ilio C a ic e do-C ue ro and Jua n C a ic e do-R e n gifo a

ppe a l the ir
c onvic tions under the M a ritim e Drug La

w Enforc e m e nt Ac t (“ M DLEA” ), 46 U.S.C . § 70503. Appe lla nts a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

whe n it de te rm ine d that the re wa s a

suffic i e nt ne xus to support c onstitutiona l jurisdic tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w d

enov o a distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination of c o nstitutiona l jurisdic tion unde r the M DLEA. Unite d State s v . Pe rlaza , 439 F.3d 1149, 1160 n.13 (9th C ir. 2006). W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror. Unite d State s v . K han , 35 F.3d 426, 430 (9th C ir. 1994). The pa rtie s disa g re e ove r whic h sta nda rd of re vie w should a

pply to the distric t c o urt’ s finding tha t the c oc a ine wa s de stine d for the Unite d State s. Unde r
any sta nda rd of re vie w, the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly found tha

t the c oc a ine wa s de stine d for the Unite d State s. The distric t c ourt prope rly re lie d on thete stim ony of the Gove rnm e nt’ s e xpe rt witne ss, Age nt M ic ha e l W a sse r. Tha t te s tim o ny
e sta blishe d by a

pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t the c oc a ine wa s inte nde d for distribution in the

Unite d Stat e s.

* * The Honora

ble B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa t ion.
2The distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the c oc a ine wa s de stine d for the Unite d Stat e s “provide s a

suffic ie nt ne xus be twe e n the de fe nda nts’ a c tivitie s a

nd the Unite d State s to sa

tisfy the ne xus re quire m e nt.” Unite d State s v . K limav ic i usViloria , 144 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th C ir. 1998). Thus, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly
c onc lude d tha

t the re wa s c onstitutiona

l jurisdic t ion in this c a se . AFFIRM E D.

3
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, M. Shellie Fugate, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of SouthEast Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;     (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.]     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 11, 2007             /s/ M. Shellie Fugate   M. Shellie Fugate,  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 11, PageID.26 Filed 10/28/08 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 11, PageID.27 Filed 10/28/08 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 11, PageID.28 Filed 10/28/08 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 11, PageID.29 Filed 10/28/08 Page 4 of 4