alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17403]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: Approximately 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1996, 
following a recess at the conclusion of the open meeting.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: July 3, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-17403 Filed 7-3-96; 3:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-10-P
```
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-145223 on Form S-3of our reports dated March 12, 2008, relating to i) the consolidated financial statements ofCenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (such report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of a newaccounting standard related to conditional asset retirement obligations in 2005), and ii) theconsolidated financial statement schedule, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ *DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*Houston, Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES LOVE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-13130

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

GENERAL MOTORS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff Charles Love filed a complaint and an application for appointment of counsel

on August 10, 2009. According to his complaint, plaintiff’s action is brought under the

Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act against General Motors Corporation and the UAW

International Local 160. Plaintiff refers to a complaint filed with the Michigan Department

of Labor, Wage and Hour Division regarding the practices of defendant General Motors,

apparently in the year 2007. Plaintiff explains that he has been on an unpaid medical leave

from General Motors since November 30, 2007. 

In a civil case, appointment of counsel is not a constitutional right. Lavado v.

Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). Rather, it is a privilege that is justified only

by exceptional circumstances. Id. at 606. The court is to examine the complexity of the

factual and legal issues involved, a well as the abilities of the plaintiff to represent himself.

Id.

Plaintiff filed a financial affidavit, but has not explained any effort of his own to obtain

counsel to represent him in this matter. Plaintiff has not attached the decision of the

2:09-cv-13130-GCS-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 08/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 13
2

Michigan Department of Labor regarding his complaint, nor has he adequately explained

the nature of his complaint in this Court. See Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of

Chicago, 823 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir. 1987). 

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is

hereby DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

August 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13130-GCS-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 08/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 14
175 La. 1078

#### Succession of WILSON. LEWIS v. GRETNA TRUST & SAVINGS BANK.

No. 32053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1932.

John E. Fleury, of Gretna, and Spearing & McClendon, of New Orleans, for appellant. •

A. H. Thalheim, of Gretna, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

Priscilla Wilson, widow of William Lewis, died at her domicile in Jefferson parish, La., on August 4, 1929, leaving a will made in the noncupative form by public act, and an estate of the inventoried value of $3,585.44. The will makes but one bequest, and the value of the property thus bequeathed is inventoried at $472.50. For all present purposes, we need only quote from the will the following:

> “I will the real estate located on Madison and Cook Street to my son, David Lewis. I name my said son testamentary executor with seizen and without bond. I also name Andrew H. Thalheim as attorney to my testamentary executor.”

In due course the will was probated, David Lewis was recognized and qualified as testamentary executor, and, as such, entered upon the discharge of his duties. Thereafter, in proceedings which appear to be regular, David Lewis was dismissed as testamentary executor of the deceased. Trans, p. 10. In subsequent proceedings Willie Lewis was appointed dative testamentary executor of the will of the deceased. Trans, p. 12. Thereafter, on a motion to show cause, Willie Lewis was dismissed as dative testamentary executor of the will of the deceased and the Gretna Trust & Savings Bank, of Gretna, was appointed dative testamentary executor of the will of the deceased. Trans, p. 38. The Gretna Trust & .Savings Bank qualified as dative testamentary executor, and now holds said office.

Following these proceedings, George Lewis, one of the children of the deceased, filed a suit to invalidate the will for certain alleged defects which need not be mentioned here. That suit was dismissed. Trans, p. 44. The appeal herein is from that judgment.

The Gretna Trust & Savings Bank, dative testamentary executor, has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the will of the deceased contains but one bequest and the inventoried value of the property bequeathed is $472.50, an amount less than the minimum jurisdiction of this court.

What is actually involved in this case is the right of the dative testamentary executor to administer and distribute the property of an estate of an inventoried value of $3,-585.44, a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court. Where the fund to be distributed exceeds $2,000 exclusive of interest, irrespective of the amount claimed, except in suits for damages for physical injuries to, or for the death of a person, this court has appellate jurisdiction. Section 10, art. 7, Const, of 1921. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00163-CV

CITY OF HIDALGO - TEXAS MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CORPORATION

v.

LAURA RODRIGUEZ

On Appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-2923-19-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 11, 2024
Case 4:09-cr-20105-LJM-MJH ECF No. 17, PageID.70 Filed 03/16/09 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALISA McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-11947

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

vs.

TRANS UNION, LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants.

______________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s Report and

Recommendation dated November 30, 2009. No objections were filed thereto.

This Court had an opportunity to fully review this matter and believes that the Magistrate

Judge has reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons.

ACCORDINGLY:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s Report and

Recommendation dated November 30, 2009, is hereby accepted and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Equifax’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED. 

Dated: January 25, 2010 S/Bernard A. Friedman

Detroit, Michigan BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-11947-BAF-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 01/25/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 176
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 ROADSHIPS HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Micheal Nugent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/ Michael Norton Smith


Michael Norton Smith, Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 20, 2012
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 54 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 41 -CG-M -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DIEP VU HO, a.k .a. Dum

bo , a.k .a. Quo c T. Ho, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 2, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Raym on d A. Pi ers on , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Die p VuHo i n thi s d ire ct cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t heap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su e o f m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andHo’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es are AFFIRMED .

2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q(the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of ManhattanBancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or78o(d)); and

 

2.          The informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the datesand for the periods presented in the financial statements included in suchreports.

 

 
| Dated:   August 13, 2008 |                         |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                               |                         |
|                               |                         |
|                               | /s/  Dean Fletcher           |
|                               | Dean Fletcher                |
|                               | Executive Vice President     |
|                               | and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### Terry ROBINSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68648.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 14, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 10, 1996.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A grand jury indicted defendant for first degree murder and armed criminal action. Sections 565.020.2 and 571.015.1, RSMo 1994. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the State reduced the murder charge to second degree murder, § 565.021.1, RSMo 1994, and the trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent fifteen year terms.

In this appeal, defendant alleges the motion court erred in denying him an evidentia-ry hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion. In denying the hearing, the motion court found that defendant “failed to allege grounds that would entitle him to relief, if true, and that are not refuted by the record.”

The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

*861The motion court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: November 14, 2008/s/ D. James Daras

Name: D. James DarasTitle:   Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER AND N OTICE OF I NTENT TO D ISMISS FOR W ANT OF J URISDICTION

Appellate case name: Cheri Vega v. Arturo Lira

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 054

- CV

Trial court case number: 2008

- 11473

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

On May 25, 2017, appellant, Cheri Vega, through counsel, filed an amended notice of appeal seeking to appeal from four different orders in the underlying suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. The Court notif ies a ppellant that, after a review of
th e amended notice of appeal and the clerk’s record filed on March 1, 2017 , this Court may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). We are authorized by statute to consider an appeal from a “final order” rendered under Tit le 5 of the Family Code. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 105.006(a), 109.002(b) (West 201 5 );

see, e.g. , Brejon v. Johnson , 314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). G enerally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after a judgment , or within twenty days after an interlocutory order

, is signed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1 (b)

.

The first two orders listed in the amended notice of appeal

— the trial court’s “Order on Motion to Compel Payment of Amicus Fees, Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Sanction,” signed on April 4, 2016, and the “Order on Motion to Disqualify Amicus Attorney

, ” signed on May 12, 2016

— a re n ot located in the clerk’s record for thi s appeal

. In any event, all four orders appear to be non

- appealable interlocutory order s because

t hey are neither “final order [s] ” n or interlocutory order s that are appealable. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 105.001(a)(5) (West 2015), 105.006(a), 109.002(b) ; T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(a)(1)

- (12) (West 2015) . And, even if these orders are appealable, the amended notice of appeal appears to be untimely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
26.1 (b)

. Finally, the January 23, 2017 order also was not signed by the trial court

.

Accordingly, unless the appellant file s a second amended notice of appeal or a
response to th is notice providing a detailed explanation, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case law to show that this Court has jurisdiction over thisappeal

, the Court may dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction w ithout further notice

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a) , (c)

, 43.2(f). A ny response must be filed within 1 0 days of
the date of this order

.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court
Date: June 6 , 2017
4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/18/10 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 21
4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/18/10 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 22
4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/18/10 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 23
4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/18/10 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 24
4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/18/10 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 25
Opinion issued May 6 , 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00096 - CR

——————————— LINDA LIZETTE LERMA , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 461st District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 82180 - CR
MEMORANDU M OPINION On October 17, 2018 , a jury found appellant, Linda Lizette Lerma, guilty of the felony offense of murder. The jury sentenced appellant to forty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Our Court affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal. See Lerma v. State , No. 01

- 18

- 00999

- CR,2

2019 WL 5996380, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. ] Nov. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication). The mandate issued on January 24, 2020. On February 1, 2021, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking a second appeal from her final 2018 conviction. The notice of appeal is unti mely, but more fundamentally we lack jurisdiction to consider a second appeal of appellant’s final conviction. See Hines v. State , 70 S.W. 955, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1902) (“[O]nly one appeal can be made from a verdict and judgment of conviction in any case .”). The exclusive post

- conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art. 11.07, § 5 (providing that “ [a]fter convi ction, the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner ”); see Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we dismi ss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f); see , e.g. , Hosea v. State , No. 01

- 11

- 01050

- CR, 2012 WL 234535 1 , *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication ) ( dismissing for want of jurisdiction defendan t’ s subsequent appeal of conviction that had previously been affirmed ); Arabzadegan v. State , No. 03

- 19

- 00728

- CR, 2020 WL 370880, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 23, 2020, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( sa me) ; McDonald v. State , 401 S.W.3d3

360, 361

– 63 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2013, pet. ref'd) (same). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2 (b).
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Aspect L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Partnership.




















By:             /s/            Christian Angstadt





Name:                    Christian Angstadt


Title:                      Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 29, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20423-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

ADAM LEE ROOT,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on December 22, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

December 23, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the

sole count of the indictment. As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation

waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the

Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 17] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20423-TLL-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 01/11/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 51
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the sole count of the

indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 16] is taken UNDER

ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 11, 2010

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 January 11, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20423-TLL-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 01/11/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 52