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. 06-cr-10-PB

Pade Voth Vann

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 2, 2006 trial in

the above case, citing the need for additional time to complete 

discovery and prepare a defense. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to September 6, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00010-PB Document 20 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 20, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until August 30, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 27, 2006

cc: Jorel V. Booker, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00010-PB Document 20 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BOBBY MEAD and KARRIE MEAD,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A 

Nebraska Corporation; and ART BECKER 

TRANSPORTATION LLC,

Defendants.

8:23CV170

ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Objection to Appointment of 

Special Master. Filing No. 55. The objection is sustained, and this case remains assigned 

solely to Judge Bataillon until a new magistrate judge is assigned. The parties are 

instructed to contact Judge Bataillon’s chambers for any matters previously assigned to 

Magistrate Judge Bazis, including case progression and discovery. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Filing No. 55 is granted.

2. This case remains assigned solely to Judge Bataillon.

Dated this 26th day of April, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00170-JFB Doc # 56 Filed: 04/26/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 181
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                       293
<INVENTORY>                                        219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,973
<PP&E>                                           4,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,021
<SALES>                                          5,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,879
<CGS>                                              844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,666
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    65
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    479
<INCOME-TAX>                                       158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 23, 2009

Mr. Andrew Edward Lemanski

Hull & Associates, P.C.

6200 Savoy, Suite 440 

Houston, TX 77036

Mr. Edward P. Fahey Jr.

1800 Victoria, Suite 2

Laredo, TX 78040

RE:Case Number:  08-1026

Court of Appeals Number:  04-07-00465-CV

Trial Court Number:  2006CVF001343-D2

Style:UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS

v.

JAVIER VILLA

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Jessica Hamby, Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-1026Page 1**
185 La. 147

#### GULF REFINING COMPANY OF LOUISIANA v. John GLASSELL, Jr., et al.

No. 33870.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1936.

Herold, Cousin & Herold, J. S. Atkinson, and Frederick E. Greer, all of Shreveport, and John E. Green, Jr., of Houston, Texas, for appellant.

S. W. Plauche, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellees.

ROGERS, Justice.

This is the second suit filed by the plaintiff in an attempt to enforce its alleged rights under a mineral lease obtained from Travers A. Anding, covering the east half of the southeast quarter of section 2, township 9, range 4 west, Parish of Jefferson Davis. The first suit was dismissed on an exception of no right or cause of action. This suit was also dismissed on a similar exception. Both judgments were ap*757pealed by plaintiff, and in each appeal defendants have moved to remand the case so that they may be permitted by appropriate proceedings to avail themselves of the benefits provided by the codal provisions (Civ. Code, arts. 26S2 and 2653) relative to litigious rights.

As the motion to remand in each case is similar, what we have said in the other case applies with equal force to this case.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana v. John Glassell, Jr., et al. (La.Sup.) 168 So. 755, this day decided, the motion to remand filed in this case is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.
224 La. 1034

#### Ex parte PERKINS.

No. 41246.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1954.

. John E. Perkins, Baton Rouge, in pro. per.

Alvin B. Rubin, Baton Rouge, for appel-lee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

John E. Perkins addressed a petition to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge (without joining any parties defendant) in which he alleged he is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and although not licensed to practice law in this state is a duly qualified member in good standing of the Mississippi State Bar, seeking a judgment declaring whether under Section 7 of Act No. 202 of 1,932 (termed the “reciprocity” statute) he is entitled, as a member of the Mississippi Bar, to appear before the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (1) as a visiting attorney, (2) alone, or (3) in association with a duly qualified member of the Louisiana State Bar. The Louisiana State Bar Association -intervened and filed numerous exceptions which, by agreement, were pretermitted and the case tried on the merits.

The trial judge, in a well considered opinion, in which we fully concur, pointed out that under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Statutes of 1950, ipto which Act Ño. 202 of 1932 with its amendments has been incorporated, no one may practice *559law in this state "who has not been first duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law by the supreme court of this state,” LSA-R.S. 37:213, except (1) a visiting attorney duly licensed in another state and temporarily present in Louisiana who is acting in association with a duly licensed Louisiana attorney, such visiting attorney, however (2) being permitted to practice law in Louisiana alone and without associating a Louisiana attorney if he comes from a state that has adopted a rule of reciprocity' that permits a duly licensed and qualified Louisiana attorney “to appear alone as an attorney in all courts of record in the other state”. LSA-R.S. 37:214. But he concluded that inasmuch as the petitioner, according to his own allegations and testimony/is now and has been for moré than 30 years a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as well as a qualified voter of that city, he is not a “visiting attorney” within the" clear language of the statute and, therefore, not entitled to come under its provisions.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, CHARLES H. GUY III, Chief  Executive  Officer of EduLink,  Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby  certify,  in accordance  with 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

         (1)      The  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q of the  Company  for the
                  period  ending June 30,  2003 (the  "Periodic  Report")  fully
                  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated August 19, 2003                  /s/ CHARLES H. GUY III
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Atlantic Administrators Insurance Agency, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-230-JM

Brokerage Concepts, Inc.

Melcher & Prescott Agency, Inc.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

October 23, 2007 /s/James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: William D. Pandolph, Esq.

Mark L. Mallory, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00230-JM Document 24 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-165-01-PB

Anthony Frith

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. He admitted the violation and stipulated to

detention. I revoke his bail. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

Case 1:06-cr-00165-PB Document 18 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
2

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 5, 2007 

cc: Adams Harris Bernstein, Esq.

 Karin M. Eckel, Esq.

 Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00165-PB Document 18 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
3.12 U.S. RESERVE ASSETS

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2003 2004 2005

2006

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.p

1 Total ................................. 85,938 86,824 65,127 65,594 65,364 65,354 66,846 67,706 67,935 67,559 66,606

2 Gold stock1 ............................ 11,043 11,045 11,043 11,044 11,044 11,043 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041

3 Special drawing rights2,3 ................. 12,638 13,582 8,210 8,302 8,310 8,344 8,518 8,704 8,618 8,644 8,726

4 Reserve position in International Monetary Fund2 ............................ 22,535 19,479 8,036 7,639 7,638 7,376 7,219 7,219 7,906 7,460 6,715

5 Foreign currencies4 ..................... 39,722 42,718 37,838 38,609 38,372 38,592 40,068 40,742 40,370 40,414 40,124

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF have also been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2003r 2004r 2005r

2006

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.p

1 Deposits .............................. 162 80 83 83 82 84 86 86 142 88 89

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 845,080 1,041,215 1,069,014 1,080,198 1,105,178 1,103,810 1,097,103 1,093,393 1,089,512 1,095,248 1,116,941

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 8,971 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TRAVIS COX,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF OMAHA, OMAHA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, CHARLES SWEENEY, 

Officer; JOSEPH SALERNO, Officer; 

DOUGLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, and DOUGLAS 

COUNTY,

Defendants.

8:23CV241

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for case management. The Prison Litigation 

Reform Act requires an imprisoned civil plaintiff to pay the Court’s entire filing fee, either 

at the outset when filing the complaint, or in installments if the Court grants leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529–30 (8th Cir. 1997); 

Jackson v. N.P. Dodge Realty Co., 173 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Neb. 2001).

On July 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to proceed 

IFP and ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $47.20 within 30 

days. See Filing No. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee or 

asked for an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court will require 

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the 

initial partial filing fee. 

If Plaintiff’s failure to pay by the Court’s deadline was caused by prison officials’ 

failure to adhere to his request to remit payment using funds from his account or other 

circumstances beyond his control, his failure to pay within the time ordered by the Court 

8:23-cv-00241-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 44
2

will be excused. Absent a sufficient response, the case will be subject to dismissal. 

See Taylor v. Cassady, 570 Fed. App’x. 632 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding district court 

abused its discretion by dismissing case without first taking steps to determine whether 

prisoner-plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee “was caused by circumstances 

beyond his control, such as prison officials’ failure to adhere to his request to remit 

payment using funds from his account”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff will have 30 days to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. In the absence of cause shown, 

this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline 

in this case using the following text: September 8, 2023: check for response to show 

cause order. 

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00241-JFB-PRSE Doc # 18 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 45
EX-4.2




	
	 Exhibit 4.2
 






  
 Exhibit 4.2 FORM OF STOCK CERTIFICATE Number 10X GENOMICS, INC. ** Shares A DELAWARE CORPORATION Class A Common Stock CUSIP 88025U 109 THIS CERTIFIES THAT ** is the record holder of * ()*
fully paid and non-assessable shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.00001 per share, of 10x Genomics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile [seal of the corporation and the facsimile] signatures of the duly authorized officers of
the corporation. This corporation’s duly authorized officers have signed this certificate as of,. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TREASURER COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY
Authorized Signature 







 




 
  
 [Reverse Side of Stock Certificate] The Corporation will furnish to any stockholder, upon request and without charge, a full statement of the designations, relative rights, preferences and
limitations of the shares of each class and series authorized to be issued, so far as the same have been determined, and of the authority, if any, of the Board to divide the shares into classes or series and to determine and change the relative
rights, preferences and limitations of any class or series. Such request may be made to the Secretary of the Corporation or to the Transfer Agent named on this certificate.The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:TEN COM as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian (Cust)(Minor) TEN ENT as tenant by the entireties under Uniform Gifts to
Minors Act (State) JT TEN as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common FOR VALUE RECEIVED, HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND
APPOINT, ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES. DATED, 20 SIGNATURES GUARANTEED: (Stockholder) (Stockholder) THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY
AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, (Stockholder) SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO
RULE 17Ad-15 UNDER CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2008


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: October 1, 2008
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A2 25 3 . I N THE I NTEREST OF J . G. W ., A CHI LD.

Th i s cas e was do ck et ed b y t h i s Co u rt o n J u ne 1 3

, 2 0 1 9

, an d ap p el l an t 's

b ri ef an d en u m erat i on s o f erro r were d u e on J u l y 3

, 2 0 1 9

. As o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s

o rd er, ap p el l an t s t i l l h as n o t fi l e d a b r i ef an d en u m erat i o n s o f erro r an d h as n ot

p ro p erl y req u es t ed an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e i n wh i ch t o d o s o

. Acco rd i n g l y

, t h i s ap p eal

i s h ereb y DISM ISSED as ab an d o n ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt of Ap peal s Ru l es 1 3 an d 2 3.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. July 11, 2019

07/11/2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-08-01-SM

Melissa Allen

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 10) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 27, 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:07-cr-00008-SM Document 11 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: May 24, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 22, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Karin Eckel, Esq.

 Jeffrey Levin. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00008-SM Document 11 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2