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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-284-01-SM

Robert Cennami

O R D E R

Defendant Cennami’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 18). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007

trial period. Defendant Cennami shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than April 3, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 22, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 21 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 2, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 21 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Bobby THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 9, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Taylor County; Hal W. Adams, Judge.

Affirmed.
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



         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  filing  of the
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  Quarter  Ended  June 30,  2007 (the
"Report") by New Motion,  Inc.  ("Registrant"),  each of the undersigned  hereby
certifies that:

         1.       to the best of our  knowledge,  the Report fully complies with
                  the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       to the best of our knowledge, the information contained in the
                  Report  fairly  presents,   in  all  material  respects,   the
                  financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

Date: August 14, 2007                       /S/ BURTON KATZ
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Burton Katz
                                   Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 14, 2007                      /S/ ALLAN LEGATOR
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Allan Legator
                                   Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1463 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1463

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from 
    publicly traded partnerships as qualifying income of regulated 
             investment companies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

    Mr. Herger (for himself, Mr. Crane, Mr. English, Mr. Foley, Mr. 
    Houghton, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Neal of 
Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions from 
    publicly traded partnerships as qualifying income of regulated 
             investment companies, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Publicly Traded Partnership Equity 
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS TREATED AS 
              QUALIFYING INCOME OF REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 851(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining regulated investment company) is amended 
by inserting ``distributions or other income derived from an interest 
in a publicly traded partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)),'' 
after ``dividends, interest,''.
    (b) Source Flow-Through Rule Not To Apply.--The last sentence of 
section 851(b) of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than a 
publicly traded partnership (as defined in section 7704(b)))'' after 
``derived from a partnership''.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL PASSIVE ACTIVITY RULE FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS 
              TO APPLY TO REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    Subsection (k) of section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to separate application of section in case of publicly traded 
partnerships) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(4) Application to regulated investment companies.--For 
        purposes of this section, a regulated investment company (as 
        defined in section 851) holding an interest in a publicly 
        traded partnership shall be treated as a taxpayer described in 
        subsection (a)(2) with respect to items attributable to such 
        interest.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
31.2




Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, C.W.
Gilluly, Principal Financial Officer, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMASYS
Corporation;




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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
small business issuer’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 small business issuer and
have:




(a)         Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
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 which this report is being prepared;




(b)         Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this report (the
“Evaluation Date”); and




(c)         Presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;




5.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):




(a)         All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and




(b)         Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal
controls.




6.           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in any
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.










February
      29, 2008
            /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.C.W.
      Gilluly, Ed.D.Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.38



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 Schedule 
 Setting Forth Information on 
 Twenty Additional and Substantially Identical Assignments of Contracts and Permits 
  
 (Except as set forth below, documents are substantially identical to the

 document included as Exhibit 10.37 of this filing, except for immaterial variations) 
  

								
	 Location

	  	 Assignor (Preamble)

	  	 Principal Sum
 (Recitals)

	  	 Pool
Number
 (Heading)


	 Greensboro, North Carolina
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,875,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Lubbock, Texas
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	2,500,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Akron/Copley Ohio
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	5,460,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Kalamazoo, Michigan
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,938,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Clearwater/St. Petersburg, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,540,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Boston/Danvers, Massachusetts
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,620,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Irvine, California
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	12,750,000.00	  	Pool 2

  










								
	 Arcadia, California
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	14,850,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Chicago-Deerfield, Illinois
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	8,100,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Memphis, Tennessee
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	2,535,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Birmingham, Alabama
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	5,573,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Placentia, California
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	7,650,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Pensacola, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,540,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Santa Fe, New Mexico
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	8,050,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Boca Raton, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,750,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Columbia/Spartanburg, South Carolina
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,380,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Philadelphia/Berwyn, Pennsylvania
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	5,979,000.00	  	Pool 2

  










								
	 Las Vegas, Nevada
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	20,625,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,050,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Jackson, Mississippi
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,360,000.00	  	Pool 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen Cook

v. Civil No. 06-cv-58-JD

CTC Communications Corp.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Assuming that no criminal cases are proceeding to trial on

Tuesday, November 13, the trial of this case will begin on that

date. Evidence will begin following jury selection. In the

event the trial is not completed by Monday, November 19, the

trial will be suspended and will resume on Monday, November 26.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 11, 2007

cc: Samantha C. Halem, Esquire

Lauren S. Irwin, Esquire

Mary L. Marshall, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00058-JD Document 77 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 1
""...AO 440 (R~'v. 8101) Summons in "Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dynamic Network Services, Inc., 1 Sundial

Avenue, Suite 301 , Manchester NH 03103

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

Timothy Wilde, 1175 Lake Boulevard

No. 105, Davis , CA 95616

CASE NUMBER: 1 :06-cy-37 -

TO: 

Timothy Wilde

1175 Lake Boulevard

No. 105

Davis, CA 95616

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to S ATTORNEY 

Christopher Cole, Esquire

Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green,

Professional Association

1000 Elm Street

Post Office Box 3701

Manchester NH 03105-3701

an ans\'..er to the , within days after service

of this summons on you, excl usive of the day of service. , judgment by default will be taken against you

for the relief demanded in the complaint 

Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.

with ECF Notice and

Notice of Assignment to the

Magistrate Judge attached

February 6, 2006

)ATE

Clerk

Case 1:06-cv-00037-JM Document 7-2 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
Merrimack County 

163 North Main St.

Concord , NH 03301

Phone: 603-225-5583

...

TIMOTHY WILDE

1175 LAKE BOULEVARD #105

DAVIS , CA 95616

MERRIMACK, SS DATE: FEBRUARY 

I, (JOb summoned the within named

defendant TIMOTHY WILDE as wi 

William M. Gardner, Secretary of State of New 

lawful Attorney for the service of process under and by virtue of Chapter

510: 4, 

attested copy of this Summons and Complaint and I paid the Secretary of

State ten ($10. 00) dollars as his fee for accepting 

FEES

Service:

PO to SOS:

Postage

Travel

15.

10.

1. 00

TOTAL: 18.

, Deputy Sheriff

J LOOMIS

Case 1:06-cv-00037-JM Document 7-2 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephanie B. Barrett

v. Civil No. 06-cv-240-PB

Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., et al

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from this case.

SO ORDERED.

January 25, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 68 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 1
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE
LAWRENCE E. MEYERS CHERYL JOHNSONMIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY ELSA ALCALA BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES 

### Court ofCriminal Appeals P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711



### Houston County County Clerk P O Box 370 Crockett, TX 75835 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * December 9, 2015 FILE COPY

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK (512)463-1551
SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL

(512)463-16(1(1

Re: JOHNSON, TERENCE CCA No. PD-0228-14 Trial Court Case No. 12-06-00189-CR COANo. 12-12-00425-CR



### The Court ofCriminal Appeals has this day issued a mandate for the above-referenced and styled case number. The mandate will be transmitted electronically only.
***COUNTY CLERK*** MANDATE RECEIPTACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

### Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P, please acknowledge receipt ofthe mandate ofthe Court of Criminal Appeals in the above numbered and styled case via this email link. 

### Sincerely,

Abel Acosta, Clerk



### cc: 12th CourtOfAppeals Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Houston County County Attorney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) AmberN. Bewley (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) District ClerkHouston County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) JoshuaThomas Liles (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Supreme CourtBuilding, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701 Website www.txcourts.gov/cca.aspx

### TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Austin, Texas 

### MANDATE TRIAL COURT NO. 12-06-00189-CR COURT OFAPPEALS NO. 12-12-00425-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, TO THE COUNTY COURTAT LAW OF HOUSTON COUNTY
- GREETINGS: 

### Before our COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, on OCTOBER 7, 2015, the cause upon appeal to review, revise or reverse yourJudgmentbetween: TERENCE JOHNSON VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS CCRA NO. PD-0228-14 was determined; and therein our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS made its order in these words: 

### "This cause came on to be heard on the STATE'S Petition for Discretionary Review, and the same being inspected, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Petition for Discretionary Review be GRANTED. 

### Thejudgments ofthe court ofappeals and trial court are AFFIRMED, in accordance with the Opinion ofthis Court, and that this decision be certified below for observance." WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL 

### APPEALS in this behalfand in all things to have it duly RECOGNIZED, OBEYEDAND EXECUTED. WITNESS, THE HONORABLE SHARONKELLER, Presiding Judge ofour said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, 

### with the Seal thereofannexed, at the City ofAustin, on this day Wednesday, December9, 2015. FILE COPY

RLE: NCOw,cv ocappeals 12T&)&* Appeals 3isfigt_



### ABEL:ACOSTA, Clerk By: Deana Williamson, Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  A SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S  AUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET  AS OF  MARCH  31,  1998 AND
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       842,365
<ALLOWANCES>                         23,286
<INVENTORY>                       1,647,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,738,502
<PP&E>                            2,346,428
<DEPRECIATION>                      619,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,669,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             6,846,953
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                           5,000
<COMMON>                            128,493
<OTHER-SE>                       18,115,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,669,317
<SALES>                             2,011,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    2,011,897
<CGS>                             1,424,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2,141,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (385,152)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (514,795)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (514,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     113,064
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (401,731)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.25)






</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

ORDER REJECTING GLOSSARY

By order dated February 4, 2010, counsel were instructed to

“agree” on a glossary of patent law terminology and the basic

terminology of the invention. On March 16, 2010, a joint

glossary was filed which contained 54 terms and very little

agreement. The glossary is rejected.

Counsel were ordered to “agree” on a glossary and the court

will not mediate disagreements over these terms, petty or

otherwise. The purpose of the glossary is to serve as an aide to

the jurors in a highly technical case. Counsel should be very

sensitive to the fact that they have an important didactic

function to perform in order to present this case in a

comprehensible manner to a lay jury. The court expects counsel

to engage in a good faith effort to agree on a glossary. Counsel

should avoid trying to define terms that are best left to jury

instructions or to explanation and development by witnesses at

trial, and instead counsel should focus on the “basic” terms.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 263 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 2
Therefore, counsel are again ordered to file a glossary by

10 a.m. on April 6, 2010, containing only those terms upon which

they can agree. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 1, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

2

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 263 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No.: 06-CV-00354-PB

vs. )

) Judge Paul J. Barbadoro

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE THE PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY’S EXPERT WITNESS NEIL SHIFRIN

Plaintiff United States hereby moves this Court to exclude the proposed testimony of

General Electric Company’s expert witness Neil Shifrin pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence

702. The Rule requires that expert testimony should be reliable, relevant to the facts of a case,

and helpful to the trier of fact. The proposed expert, Neil Shifrin, is an engineer who offers three

separate opinions in support of defendant General Electric Company’s purported “useful

product” defense. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, Shifrin is

not qualified to offer these opinions: the opinions are not based upon reliable methodology; they

are not relevant; and they would not assist the Court to understand the evidence or to determine

any fact in issue.

A proposed Order excluding the expert testimony of Neil Shifrin is attached for this

Court’s convenience.

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 56 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 4
2

Respectfully submitted,

 

RONALD J. TENPAS

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

/s/ Catherine Adams Fiske 

Dated: 08/01/2008 Catherine Adams Fiske, Trial Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

One Gateway Center, Suite 616

Newton, MA 02458

(617) 450-0444 

Laura J. Rowley, Trial Attorney

` Peter M. Flynn, Senior Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO 

United States Attorney 

District of New Hampshire

Gretchen Leah Witt

Chief, Civil Division

Office of the United States Attorney

53 Pleasant Street, Fourth Floor

Concord, NH 03301-3904

OF COUNSEL:

RuthAnn Sherman

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES)

Boston, MA 02114

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 56 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 4
3

Certificate of Service

I, Catherine Adams Fiske, certify that the foregoing Motion, Memorandum and Proposed

Order were filed and served electronically through ECF on Peter Biagetti and William “Mo”

Cowan, counsel to the General Electric Company, on August 1, 2008.

/s/ C. A. Fiske 

Catherine A. Fiske

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 56 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 56 Filed 08/01/08 Page 4 of 4