alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1545

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the exemption

from the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of

that Act for certain computer professionals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify

the exemption from the minimum wage and overtime

compensation requirements of that Act for certain computer professionals.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS.

4 Paragraph (17) of section 13(a) of the Fair Labor

5 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended

6 to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(17)(A) any employee who is a computer sys8 tems, network, or database analyst, designer, devel-
2

•HR 1545 IH

1 oper, programmer, software engineer, or other simi2 larly skilled worker—

3 ‘‘(i) whose primary duty is—

4 ‘‘(I) the application of systems or net5 work or database analysis techniques and

6 procedures, including consulting with

7 users, to determine hardware, software,

8 systems, network, or database specifica9 tions (including functional specifications);

10 ‘‘(II) the design, configuration, devel11 opment, integration, documentation, anal12 ysis, creation, testing, securing, or modi13 fication of, or problem resolution for, com14 puter systems, networks, databases, or pro15 grams, including prototypes, based on and

16 related to user, system, network, or data17 base specifications, including design speci18 fications and machine operating systems;

19 ‘‘(III) the management or training of

20 employees performing duties described in

21 subclause (I) or (II); or

22 ‘‘(IV) a combination of duties de23 scribed in subclauses (I), (II), or (III) the

24 performance of which requires the same

25 level of skills; and
3

•HR 1545 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) who, in the case of an employee who

2 is compensated on an hourly basis, is com3 pensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an

4 hour.

5 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘network’ in6 cludes the Internet and Intranet networks and the

7 world wide web.

8 ‘‘(C) For the purposes of this Act, an employee

9 who meets the exemption provided by this paragraph

10 shall be considered an employee in a professional ca11 pacity under paragraph (1).’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brendon A. Cate

v. Civil No. 06-cv-200-SM

Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., et al

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dated August 24, 2006, and the

Order by Chief Judge McAuliffe dated August 23, 2007, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

/s/ Daniel J. Lynch

Daniel J. Lynch

Chief Deputy Clerk

August 24, 2007

cc: Brendon A. Cate, pro se

David A. Anderson, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00200-SM Document 19 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DANIELLE CLEARY, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR115 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Pretrial 

Motion Deadline, (Filing No. 25). For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be 

granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion Deadline, (Filing No. 

25), is granted. 

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by November 6, 2023. 

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between September 5, 2023 and

November 6, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time 

under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would 

deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. 

The failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 6th day of September, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00115-BCB-SMB Doc # 26 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 38
Case 1:06-cv-00069-JM   Document 11   Filed 05/01/06   Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Air Force Department


Exchange of Air Force Real Property for Military Construction

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Authority: Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(1).
SUMMARY: This Notice identifies excess Federal property under the 
administrative jurisdiction of the United States Air Force that the Air 
Force intends to exchange for military construction beneficial to the 
Air Force.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sam Rupe, Office of the Air Force 
General Counsel (SAF/GCN-RPO), 143 Billy Mitchell Blvd., Suite 1, San 
Antonio, TX 78226-1816; telephone (210) 925-0227, (this telephone 
number is not toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(1), the 
Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property 
that the Air Force intends to dispose of in exchange for military 
construction beneficial to the Air Force.
    Description of the Air Force property:
    Former Lynn Haven Defense Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, FL.
    Property Number:
    Status: Excess.
    Comments: Fuel operations at the Fuel Depot ceased in 1992, and the 
property has undergone considerable environmental remediation. The 
property proposed for exchange is approximately 144 acres of real 
property located off West 10th Street, Lynn Haven, FL 32444. About 50 
acres is a railway right-of-way extending about 3.7 miles that 
intersects several major arterial roads.
    Military construction sought:
    After completion of a competitive bid process, the Air Force will 
enter into an agreement with the selected offeror/property recipient to 
construct military construction projects at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. 
The specific projects that will be constructed will depend on the 
amount of construction value offered by the prospective property 
recipient.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21833 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
# MMjUnt 

# Zlp&t-oi RECEIVED IN COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# U(4i WlV\ c£ tori do Afe\ %€ {tlUd&i* C0Sta'CI<

. k\ (WkLnl (IPPlicaLl Ul oiiu4 Of 

# >W&s ^JLtofc Vnqb V,Wl dltA %s ^d (W4 

# 347\W 9*^^ifki (W ftt. fed' (W/,4ms e*\ \W mvV ^A $ Hoick, 3dHMlta'uvl tito (tell -io VW Ui^udrCJeet/ 

# stoA VW\ tons (WftsA (k -b 4r-fci

# 9abV- U^iti li\ti^^(L \»U ck Urns? Life iTM-TbAc^ W» iWM Aiife ^tinuMJ-/,

li ^Dl4.

# fc'/fis lilt's 6f (W l/(iL^ dT

-STok 

# SoN- wk No} tii/ziiUfe (& 4-"WiL} 

# ?Aktee. VAol WiS bltiiAXkl (Jtufof/lflfeL( a Wtaos (Was.

\Hl 

# fObi &l



# t^Wt V\k,» t&iexas 

# #k*)td .lifikvJ ZeAff '-bo

## S.UBjjIECT: Statebriefly theproblem on which youdesire assistance.

—= ^^___^ V" "if"' M"1' "-• 

# :JT lOferrt \j^M"M ^ Ik ""W fcfc oir C/hjJ- i/oIu*ie % - t^Aie 1 SdOi-cA crn> 

# <ff^\\\m Vc<> a fatigued fJ&/z- h^^ /L,j/K m S?tf /%•&>£

Name: 

# %®X tx&ki j^^brk. Living Quarters: DISPOSITION: (Inmate will not write in this space)



### &I-60(Rev. 11-90) L-C~0 U«" K^* No: 

# gssfL Unit: E& Work Assignment 

## Sdl S4tvT^2- (a?CVS C^C^l/iJl <J\)TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE —INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION *'.'"
- 

### INMATE REQUESTTO OFFICIAL REASON FOR REQUEST: (Please check one) PLEASE ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. THIS WILL SAVE TIME, GETYOUR REQUESTTO THE PROPER PERSON, AND GETAN ANSWER TO YOU MORE QUICKLY. 1. • Unit Assignment, Transfer (Chairman of Classification, Administration Building) 2. • Restoration ofLost overtime (Unit Warden-ifapproved, it will'be- forwarded to the State Disciplinary Committee) 3. HJ Request for Promotion in Class or to Trusty Class (UnitWarden- ifapproved, will be forwarded to the Director. of Classification) 4. •. Clemency-Pardon,parole, earlyout-mandatorysupervision (Board of Pardons and Paroles, 8610 Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, Texas 78757)

TO: 

# uw Uhud (Name and title of official) ADDRESS,:, 5. Q Visiting List (Asst. Directorof classification, Administration Building) • ••'••• 6. Q Parole requirements and related information (Unit Parole Counselor) 7. • 'Inmate Prison Record (Request for copy ofrecord,-infor mation on parole eligibility, discharge date, detainers-Unit Administration) 8. • Personal Interview with a representative ofan outside agency (Treatment Division, Administration Building)

DATE: 

# zj/daefr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Heleen

v. 06-cv-24-SM

Radiation Safety & Control Services, Inc.

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #34, Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to Motion for Bond and Objection to

Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis On Appeal, filed by Defendant

DATE FILED: August 8, 2006

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 7.1(e)(2) Nondispositive motion: reply memorandum is not permitted without prior

leave of court

This document will remain on file. The court will accept this document as an Objection to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis On Appeal. The defendant will need to file a motion for

leave to file a reply to plaintiff’s objection to the Motion for Bond. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead

August 16, 2006 ________ ___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Mary Ann Dempsey, Esq.

Jeffrey Heleen, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00024-SM Document 37 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Robert MILLER v. UNITED STATES of America.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1938.

Harry S. Bennett, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John C. Lehr, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal in this cause be, and the same is, dismissed for want of prosecution, the costs to be charged against the government as constructive earnings.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1373

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

310 South State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, as the ‘‘Robert W.

Davis Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, as the ‘‘Robert W. Davis Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT W. DAVIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 310 South State Street in St.

6 Ignace, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Robert W. Davis Post Office Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 1373 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Robert W. Davis Post

3 Office Building.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. Case No. 05-cv-395-PB

NH Department of Safety

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 24, 2006, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

June 19, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Harvey Pratt, Pro se

NH Attorney General

Case 1:05-cv-00395-PB Document 12 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 15


                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re: Registration  Statements Numbers 333-26819,  
    333-26827 and 333-55803 on Form S-8

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of the use therein of our report  dated July 14, 1998  related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered  a part of a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



New York, New York
July 22, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Larrabee

v. 06-cv-178-SM

United States of America

O R D E R

Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence Under 28

U. S. C. § 2255 on May 18, 2006. 

Respondent shall file an answer or other pleadings on or before June 19, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

May 25, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Peter E. Papps, Esq.

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00178-SM Document 4 Filed 05/25/2006 Page 1 of 1

Larrabee v. USA Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary of Defense

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of cancelled open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the cancellation of the meeting of the Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2008 (1300-1500 hrs). The meeting is cancelled due to lack of a quorum.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        MAJ Elaine M. Gullotta at 703-696-1385 ext 540, or email at                         *elaine.gullotta@osd.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Department of Defense announced this open meeting in a notice that was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (73 FR 44973) dated August 1, 2008.                

Dated: September 11, 2008.

Robert L. Cushing, Jr.,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E8-21703 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1183 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1183

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the ``G. Elliot Hagan 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

    Mr. Kingston (for himself, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Bishop, Mr. 
     Collins, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Isakson, Mr. 
Chambliss, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Norwood, and Mr. Linder) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, as the ``G. Elliot Hagan 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. G. ELLIOT HAGAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the G. Elliot 
Hagan Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### Max DIAMOND v. UNITED STATES. Louis ROTHKOPF v. UNITED STATES. Albert PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES. Morris PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES. Morris KLEIN v. UNITED STATES. Joe KATER v. UNITED STATES. Abraham BALABAN v. UNITED STATES. Philip GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES. Harry ORLOFF v. UNITED STATES. Sam GILDAR v. UNITED STATES.

Nos. 7746-7755.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1938.

Herman E. Kohen, William J. Corrigan, and Gerard Pilliod, all of Cleveland, Ohio, Julian C. Ryer, of Chicago, 111., and C. F. McConnell, Henry Galen, Henry A. Pollack, Stephen M. Young, and Harry F. Glick, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.

E. B. Freed, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and O’BRIEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing upon the record in these appeals that evidence procured by wire tapping constituted a vital factor in the conviction of appellants, and that such testimony is forbidden by section 605 of the Federal Communication Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 605 (see Frank Carmine Nardone et al. v. United States of America, 58 S.Ct. 275, 82 L.Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court December 20, 1937), it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgments appealed from be, and the same are, reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court for new; trials.

Reversed and remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne, Individually,

and as Trustee of Bedrock Realty Trust

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

Town of Madison, et al.

O R D E R

Samuel J. Bourne, who is represented by counsel, seeks leave

to file a motion, pro se, for relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60, from the court’s prior decisions which have

dismissed most of his claims. Trial in this case is scheduled to

begin on January 20, 2010. To avoid unnecessary delay, the court

will address Bourne’s motion without the benefit of the

defendants’ response.

Local Rule 4.3(e), addressing pro se filings, states that a

party who is represented by counsel may not make a pro se filing

in the case unless either he is granted leave to do so or the

motion relates to the status of his counsel. Bourne states that

he seeks leave to file a pro se motion under Rule 60 “[d]ue to

the continued fraud upon this Court by the Defendant’s [sic] and

their counsel and the inadequate representation of Plaintiff’s

counsel.” Bourne’s view that the defendants have engaged in

fraud was thoroughly presented, by counsel, in his motion for

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 132 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 2
2

reconsideration, which was denied for the reasons stated. The

court declines to consider the same issues presented as a pro se

motion under Rule 60.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a motion pro se (document no. 131) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 10, 2009

cc: Samuel J. Bourne, pro se

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Rachel A. Hampe, Esquire

Richard D. Sager, Esquire

Gerald F. Williamson, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 132 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2
Despite the use of the plural “Defendants,” there is only one 1

remaining Federal Defendant, Mr. Gilbert. See Memorandum of Law in

Support of Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 3 (“As to the

Federal Defendants, this Court has allowed only one claim to proceed

-- a Bivens claims against former U.S. Marshal Robert Gilbert.”).

 Although titled “Motion for Production of Documents,” 2

Plaintiff’s discovery request has not been filed with the Court (nor

should it be). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

GERARD BOULANGER, :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : NH 06-cv-00308-ECT

 : RI MC 07-23 T

WARREN DOWALIBY, et al., :

 Defendants. :

ORDER

 GRANTING IN PART

FEDERAL DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before the Court is the Federal Defendant’s Motion for

Protective Order (N.H. Document (“Doc.”) #50) (“Motion” or

“Motion for Protective Order”). By the Motion, Robert Gilbert

(“Mr. Gilbert” or the “Federal Defendant”) seeks an order

striking the discovery request propounded by Plaintiff Gerard

Boulanger (“Plaintiff”) and staying discovery from the Federal

Defendant until the Court has ruled upon the Federal

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (N.H. Doc. #27) (“Motion to [1]

Dismiss”). See Memorandum of Law in Support of Federal

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (“Federal Defendant’s

Mem.”) at 1, 6; see also id., Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1 (Plaintiff’s

discovery request entitled “Motion for Production of

Documents” ). Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Motion for 2

Protective Order. See Objection to Federal Defendant’s Motion

for Protective Order (N.H. Doc. #51) (“Plaintiff’s Objection”).

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 52 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 2
2

After consideration, the Court rules as follows. To the

extent that the Motion seeks to strike Plaintiff’s discovery

request, the Motion is denied. The Court sees no reason that

Plaintiff should have to re-serve his request if the Motion to

Dismiss is denied. However, to the extent that the Motion seeks

to stay discovery against Mr. Gilbert, the Motion is granted. 

The Court agrees with his counsel that it is unfair to require

Mr. Gilbert to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request until

there has been a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss.

So ordered.

ENTER:

/s/ David L. Martin 

DAVID L. MARTIN

United States Magistrate Judge

August 1, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 52 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2