alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Monroe PARHAM, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Employer/Insurer, and Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 70051.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 5, 1996.

Ray A. Gerritzen, St. Louis, for appellant.

Steve Shapiro, St. Louis, for respondent.

CRAHAN, Presiding Judge.

Monroe Parham (“Claimant”) appeals the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“LIRC”) denying his claim for permanent partial disability against the Second Injuiy Fund (“SIF”). Claimant contends that the LIRC erred in applying the minimum thresholds of § 287.220.1 RSMo 1994 retroactively to his claim and that the record does not support the Commission’s finding that he failed to provide expert testimony to support his claim against the SIF. We reverse and remand.

SIF concedes that LIRC’s retroactive application of the minimum thresholds of § 287.220.1 is erroneous. *Smart v. Missouri State Treasurer,*916 S.W.2d 367 (Mo.App.1996). SIF urges, however, that a mistaken conclusion by an administrative agency is not grounds for reversal if the agency’s decision is otherwise supported by competent and substantial evidence. *Cartwright v. Wells Fargo Armored Svcs.,*921 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Mo.App.1996). Here, the LIRC found that Claimant had failed to produce expert medical opinion evidence that the combined effect of the work-related and pre-existing disabilities resulted in a greater disability than their simple sum as required by § 287.220 RSMo *9101986, the version of the statute applicable to this claim. *See Searcy v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co.,*894 S.W.2d 173, 177 (Mo.App.1995).

Claimant counters that he did indeed submit such evidence but it was either misplaced or overlooked by LIRC in reaching its decision. Specifically, Claimant points to the report of Dr. Poetz, Claimant’s medical expert, offered and admitted as Exhibit 2 to his deposition, in which Dr. Poetz opined that “[t]he combination of the present and prior disabilities results in a total which exceeds, the simple sum by 10%.” At Dr. Poetz’s deposition, all parties stipulated that he would testify in accordance with what he stated in his medical report.

As originally certified by the LIRC, the record filed with this court did not contain a copy of Dr. Poetz’s report. After the briefs were filed, however, the LIRC supplemented the record, certifying that Exhibit 2 had been erroneously omitted from the record on appeal. In view of Dr. Poetz’s statement quoted above, it is apparent that the LIRC’s finding that Claimant failed to submit expert medical opinion evidence which would support SIF liability is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the award and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GRIMM and HOFF, JJ., concur.
Order entered February 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00965-CR

ANTWAUNN DISMUKE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-51584-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On November 20, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records had not been filed. We have not received the findings or the 

clerk’s record. We have received the reporter’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting 

the appeal, this is now the order of the Court.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this appeal 

within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

We ORDER court reporter Peri K. Wood to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit nos. 1 and 2, DVDs.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Peri K. 

Wood, official court reporter, 291st Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County 

District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to 

counsel for all parties. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Erik Olsson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: May 1, 2008         /s/ Erik Olsson   Erik Olsson   President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 31 , 2007/s/ Keith A. SawottkeKeith A. SawottkeSenior Vice President, andChief Financial OfficerOctober 31, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAREN LENTON,

Plaintiff

v.

CASE NUMBER: 09-10975

TIMOTHY BRUCE, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Before the court is an application for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(1); the court has considered the application and any supporting affidavit(s),

and notes that under §1915(e)(1), a court may only “request” that an attorney represent

a person who is purportedly unable to afford counsel.

IT IS ORDERED that the application is:

9 GRANTED

x DENIED

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 7, 2009

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

on this date, April 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 04/07/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 155
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Royalty Asset Holdings II, LP, Noble Energy, Inc., Charlotte Poe, Trustee of the Gerhardt Family Trust, Harold Schneider, TD Minerals LLC and Sourcing Rock,

LLC

,

Appellant s ,

v.

Bayswater Fund III

- A LLC, Bayswater

Fund III

- B LLC, Bayswater Resources LLC, Colburn Oil, LP, Ditto Land Company, LLC, Fall Land & Cattle, LLC, Pegasus Resources, LLC, and Robbins Family Minerals, LP

,

Appellee s

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 108

- CV

Appeal from the

143 rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC# 21

- 03

- 23912

- CVR)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court are the petition s for permissive appeal filed by Royalty Asset

Holdings II, LP, Noble Energy, Inc., Charlotte Poe, Trustee of the Gerhardt Family Trust, Harold

Schneider, TD Minerals LLC and Sourcing Rock, LLC

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 28.3. The petition s

are GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 28.3(k), the notice s of appeal are deemed to have been filed

by Royalty Asset Holdings II, LP, Noble Energy, Inc., Charlotte Poe, Trustee of the Gerhardt

Family Trust, Harold Schneider, TD Minerals LLC and Sourcing Rock, LLC on t he date of this2 order and the appeal will be governed by the rules applicable to accelerated appeals. Royalty

Asset Holdings II, LP, Noble Energy, Inc., Charlotte Poe, Trustee of the Gerhardt Family Trust,

Harold Schneider, TD Minerals LLC and Sourcing Ro ck, LLC are directed to take all necessary

steps to cause the appellate record to be filed. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 34.5, 34.6. The clerk’s record

and the reporter’s record, if any, are due to be filed no later than Ju ly 21 , 2022 . The Clerk of the

Court shall file a copy of this order with the trial court clerk. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 28.3(k).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 1 th day of Ju ly , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

SAMUEL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11438

CITY OF FLINT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL AND 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed to trial, and a petition for writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum. In his motion, Plaintiff expresses his frustration with the failure

to serve Defendants Justin Broughton and Blake Hiben, and asks the court to proceed

to trial against Defendant Shaun Morey. In his petition, Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in a

state prison, asserts he must be brought before the court so that a fact-finder can judge

his credibility, and he also claims that because he represents himself, he must be

present in court to effectively represent himself during trial.

Plaintiff’s motion and petition are premature. “Serving a summons or filing a

waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant” who meets certain

criteria. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). To guarantee the efficient development of a case, the

court generally will not issue a scheduling order, and therefore will not reach a trial,

before all named defendants have been served or dismissed. Here, Defendant

Broughton has entered the case. A recent February 22, 2011, text-only docket entry

reflects Defendant Hiben returned an executed waiver of service, and his answer was

2:09-cv-11438-RHC-PJK Doc # 63 Filed 03/03/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 359
2

due December 18, 2010, but counsel has not entered an appearance on his behalf. 

Additionally, the court must adjudicate Defendants’ recently-filed motion to dismiss. If

Plaintiff’s complaint survives that adjudication, the court will enter a scheduling order

authorizing a period of discovery, and setting a deadline for any dispositive motion

practice. If the case proceeds beyond the dispositive motion stage, only then will the

case proceed to trial.

Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. The court also must deny

Plaintiff’s petition, for the same reasons. Because of the difficulties encountered in

bringing the named Defendants into the case, this matter is still in an early phase of

litigation. If and when the matter proceeds to trial, if Plaintiff remains incarcerated, he

may re-file his petition to be brought before the court. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Proceed to Trial as Stated in Rule 26(f)

Initial Discovery Plan” [Dkt. # 52] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad

Testificandum” [Dkt. # 54] is DENIED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 3, 2011

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

on this date, March 3, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-11438.JACKSON.DenyMotionProceedTrial.jmp.wpd

2:09-cv-11438-RHC-PJK Doc # 63 Filed 03/03/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 360
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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter
Stunder, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 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/
Walter Stunder


Walter
Stunder


Chief
Executive Officer






June 17,
2008













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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis
Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 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/
Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis
Jimenez Rivero


Chief
Financial Officer






June 17,
2008
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17652]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 25, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Embassy Bancorp, Inc., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Embassy Bank for the Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 28, 2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-17652 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil No. 2:06-cv-10347

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED 

THIRTY- THREE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-FIVE

CENTS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY 

($45,433.65); AND FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND

EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS IN UNITED

STATES CURRENCY ($59,850.00);AND EIGHTEEN

THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWELVE DOLLARS

AND NINETEEN CENTS IN UNITED STATES

CURRENCY ($18,112.19); AND THIRTEEN THOUSAND

NINE HUNDRED FOURTEEN DOLLARS AND

SIXTY -FOUR CENTS IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY ($13,914.64); AND ONE 2001 CHEVROLET

CORVETTE CONVERTIBLE VIN: 1G1YY32GX15109635;

AND ONE 2002 LINCOLN LS, VIN: 1LNHM87A12Y628055; 

AND ONE 2003 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR,

VIN: 5LMFU28R03LJ32720,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________/

ORDER FOR PARTIAL LIFT OF STAY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE 

OF ALLOWING THE INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF THE DEFENDANT VEHICLES

This matter having come before this Court pursuant to the United States of America's

Motion For Partial Lift of Stay For the Limited Purpose to Allow the Interlocutory Sales of the

defendant vehicles enumerated above, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the

premises, now, therefore;

2:08-mc-51163-NGE-SDP Doc # 6 Filed 03/19/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 35
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The defendant vehicles shall be sold by this court ordered interlocutory sale. 

2) The stay of this civil action shall be partially lifted for the limited purpose of

allowing the interlocutory sale of the defendant vehicles. 

3) The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) shall provide notice of the sale of the

defendant vehicles. 

4) The defendant vehicles shall not be sold for less than two-thirds of their appraised

value according to the NADA guide.

5) The proceeds realized from the defendant vehicles shall be placed with the United

States Marshals Service (USMS) account as substitute res for the vehicles in this civil forfeiture

action and shall be held by the U.S. Marshals Service until further order by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: March 18, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on March 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-mc-51163-NGE-SDP Doc # 6 Filed 03/19/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 36
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00132

- CV

ESCONDIDO RESOURCES II, LLC,

Appellant

v.

LAS TINAJAS MINERALS, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CVI

- 000015

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzo n , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena Chapa, Ju stic e

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s unopposed motion to extend time to file the reply brief is granted. We order

appellant’s reply brief is due November 16, 2020.

I t is so ORD ERED o n this 2nd day of November, 2020

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of KerznerInternational Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of The Bahamas(the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tosuch officer’s best knowledge that:

 

1.)                                   theReport fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.)                                   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

 

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes ofcomplying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 
| Dated:  March 30, 2005 | /s/ Howard  B. Kerzner  |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                        | Howard B. Kerzner       |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                    |
|                        |                    |
| Dated:  March 30, 2005 | /s/ John R.  Allison    |   |
|                        | John R. Allison         |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

No. 2:09-MD-2042 

IN RE: REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2042 

Honorable Sean F. Cox 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT 

PLEASE enter the appearance of Lawrence Kill of Anderson Kill & Olick, 

P.C., as counsel on behalf of Defendants Danfoss AIS, Danfoss Flensburg Gmbh and 

Danfoss, LLC in the above-captioned matter. 

Dated: June 28, 2013 

nydocs1-1015150.1 

Respectfully submitted, 

' 

() 

,, 

\ 

A ERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C. 

1251 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020 

Telephone: (212)-278-1722 

Facsimile: (212)-278-1733 

E-Mail: lkill@andersonkill.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Danfoss AIS, Danfoss Flensburg Gmbh and 

Danfoss, LLC 

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 381 Filed 06/28/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 8704
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 28, 2013, the forgoing Notice of Appearance 

was filed with the court using the ECF system, which will send notification to all counsel 

registered to receive electronic notice from the Court's electronic filing system. 

By: 

nydocs1-1 015150.1 

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 381 Filed 06/28/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 8705