alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LUCAS E. MOORE & CO. v. HURSEY TRANSP. CO., Inc.

No. 865.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1931.

S. W. Provensal, of Slidell, for appellant.

Thos. M. & Jas. T. Burns, of Covington, for appellee.

MOUTON, J.

Defendant company executed a promissory note for $500 in favor of plaintiff company, September 30, 1930, payable in October, 1930.

The execution of the note is admitted, the sole defense being want of consideration.

The proof is that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in a sum exceeding $500 for insurance premiums. It is shown, and not disputed, that this note was given in part payment of the account for these premiums, and that the account was credited up to the amount of the note. This pre-existing obligation of the defendant constituted a legal consideration for the note which embodied a valid binding obligation.

Counsel for defendant contends that there was no novation and there is nothing therefore to prevent plaintiff from suing on the old debt. The question of novation is not raised in the answer or pleadings.

Novation is not an issue in the case, and even if it were, as defendant’s account has been credited to the amount Of the note, it need not entertain any fear that plaintiff could hereafter recover for the whole debt.

The judgment below is in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the note, in which we find no error, but we will not, however, grant damages for a frivolous appeal asked for by ap-pellee.

Judgment affirmed.
December 18, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHOPRA AND ASSOCIATES, Appellant

NO. 14-13-01099-CV V.

U.S. IMAGING, INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, U.S. Imaging, 

Inc., signed November 18, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Chopra and Associates, jointly and severally, to pay all 

costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. Civil No. 05-cv-191-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Harvey Pratt moves for reconsideration of the order granting

in part and denying in part the warden’s motion for summary

judgment on Pratt’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pratt

states that he contests certain facts “found” in that order and

provides his affidavit in support of his version of the facts. 

His motion challenges evidence admitted at his criminal trial,

argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge

certain evidence, and contends that the state court lacked

jurisdiction to prosecute him. 

A motion for reconsideration must be based on newly

discovered evidence or manifest errors of law. Landrau-Romero v.

Banco Popular de P.R., 212 F.3d 607, 612 (1st Cir. 2000). Pratt

has demonstrated neither.

As explained in the summary judgment order, summary judgment

is based upon the properly supported and undisputed material

facts presented by the parties, not facts found by the court. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A material fact is one that “has the

potential to change the outcome of the suit under the governing

law” and a factual dispute is genuine if “the evidence about the

Case 1:05-cv-00191-JD Document 25 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in

favor of the nonmoving party.” Grant’s Dairy--Me., LLC v. Comm’r

of Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 232 F.3d 8, 14 (1st

Cir. 2000). Further, in the context of a habeas petition, “a

determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be

presumed to be correct[, and] the applicant shall have the burden

of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and

convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 

Pratt’s motion merely reiterates his disagreement with

evidence presented at his criminal trial. Those issues were

raised and considered in the context of his objection to the

warden’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, he does not

present grounds for reconsideration.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 24) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 13, 2006

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

Nicholas P. Cort, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00191-JD Document 25 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the prohibitions on

the transmission of abortion related matters, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. FRANK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the

prohibitions on the transmission of abortion related matters, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Comstock Cleanup Act

5 of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN

7 ABORTION-RELATED MATTERS.

8 Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is

9 amended—
2

•HR 1346 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

2 (b) of the first undesignated paragraph; and

3 (2) by striking subparagraph (c) of the first un4 designated paragraph.

5 SEC. 3. MAILING OF ABORTION-RELATED MATTERS.

6 Section 1461 of title 18, United States Code, is

7 amended by striking ‘‘; and’’ the first place it appears,

8 and all that follows through ‘‘Is declared’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘is declared’’.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1552

To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act through

2006, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Mr. COX (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax

Freedom Act through 2006, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Tax Non5 discrimination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MOR7 ATORIUM.

8 (a) EXTENSION; INTERNET ACCESS TAXES.—Section

9 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151

10 note) is amended—
2

•HR 1552 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘taxes during the period begin2 ning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after

3 the date of enactment of this Act—’’ in subsection

4 (a) and inserting ‘‘taxes:’’;

5 (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (a)

6 and inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) Taxes on Internet access.’’;

8 (3) by inserting before ‘‘multiple’’ in paragraph

9 (2) of subsection (a) the following: ‘‘During the pe10 riod beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending on

11 December 31, 2006,’’;

12 (4) by striking subsection (d); and

13 (5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as

14 subsections (d) and (e), respectively.

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1104(10)

16 of Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is

17 amended by striking ‘‘services unless such tax was gen18 erally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1,

19 1998.’’ and inserting ‘‘services.’’.

Æ
(logo)LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the “Special Servicer”), as specialservicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for thetransactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject toany limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, onbehalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officerof the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.            A review ofthe activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencingon January 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2018 (or any other shorter periodset forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “'Reporting Period”), and of theSpecial Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen made under my supervision; and

 

2.            To the bestof my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicingcriteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 19, 2019

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue • Suite 700 • Miami Beach,Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 • Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

 

MSC 2018-H4

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust2018-H4, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-H4

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Group Email

 

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

600 Third Avenue, 40th Floor

Att: MSC 2018-H4

New York NY 10016

Group

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia MD 21045

Att: Corporate Trust (CMBS)

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia MD 21045

Group Notices
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J . Carey

V .

Joseph A . WinguaV

No . 06-fp-26 2

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-262-SM .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

Date : July 20, 2006

United States Magistrate Judg e

cc : William J . Carey, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00262-SM Document 6 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.49



    




November 7, 2018


Alex Chriss




Dear Alex,


You are a valued and important leader and you play a critical role in Intuit’s mission to power prosperity around the world.  I’m delighted to confirm your promotion to Executive Vice President & General Manager, SBSEG.  This promotion recognizes both the increased scope and impact your role has across Intuit, as well as your excellent performance.


I’m pleased to provide you with details of your new compensation which will be effective, January 1, 2019: 


	
						
	Current Base Salary
	New Base Salary
	 
	 

	$481,500
	$600,000 (+25%)
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Current IPI Target 
	New IPI Target*
	 
	 

	60%
	100%
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Equity
	 
	 
	 

	FY18 Focal Award Grant
	January 2019 Promotion Grant
	 
	 

	$1,300,000 (Grant Value)
	$2,150,000 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	July 2019 Focal Award Grant**
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 






*FY19 bonus will be prorated based on number of days in each position
** Subject to the terms and conditions of the Intuit Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan and CODC approval


I look forward to seeing your success and development in this expanded role.  I am confident you will continue to achieve great outcomes for Intuit and be a boundaryless leadership role model for others.


Congratulations,


/s/ Sasan Goodarzi


Sasan Goodarzi
EVP & General Manager, SBSEG


 cc: Laura Fennell
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE ANDERSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 659 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Whether a defendant’s burden to establish a reasonable expectation 

of privacy at a suppression hearing requires that defendant to 

affirmatively present evidence of permission to use the vehicle where 

the defendant is not the registered owner of [the] vehicle but the 

Commonwealth’s evidence does not otherwise negate an 

expectation of privacy?
#### Werner Lee DOWDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. LAMARQUE, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-55741.

D.C. No. CV-01-05084-AHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2002.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Werner Lee Dowdle appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1987 California convictions as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Dowdle’s habeas petition, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, *See Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Dowdle contends that his § 2254 petition was filed within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year limitation period based on the date he diligently acquired the predicate facts necessary to support his petition. We conclude that the district court’s factual findings concerning the “trigger date” for the running of the statute of limitations were not clearly erroneous. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) (commencing one-year time limit on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence”); *Hasan v. Galaza,*254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating the statute of limitations begins to run when the prisoner knows the important facts, not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance). For this reason, based on the facts contained in the *766record, an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Dowdle’s petition as time-barred.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-55-01-SM

Richard Ouellette

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 28). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2008

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

later than June 12, 2008. 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 or Change of Plea : June 19, 2008 at 

9:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: July 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 30 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 2, 2008

cc: Jaye Rancourt, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00055-SM Document 30 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 1183

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

An Act

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. 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’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘G. Elliot

Hagan Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-97-01/02-SM

Edward Cervantes Arias

and Jose Luis Alsina-Ortiz

O R D E R

Defendant Alsina-Ortiz’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference

and trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the

September 2006 trial period. Defendant Alsina-Ortiz’s Bennett shall file a

waiver of speedy trial rights not later than July 3, 2006. 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 defendants in a speedy trial, 18

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

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 30, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: September 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 17 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 26, 2006

cc: Richard N. Foley, Esq.

Jose A. Espinosa, Esq.

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00097-SM Document 17 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         139,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,273
<PP&E>                                       1,142,862
<DEPRECIATION>                               (692,267)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 663,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,816
<BONDS>                                        212,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                           424
<OTHER-SE>                                     367,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   663,535
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (67)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       985
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1235

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the holding period

for long-term capital gain treatment to 6 months.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. FOLEY 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 reduce

the holding period for long-term capital gain treatment

to 6 months.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investment Assets Se5 curity Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. DECREASE IN HOLDING PERIOD REQUIRED FOR

7 LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN TREATMENT.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—

9 (1) CAPITAL GAIN.—Paragraphs (1) and (3) of

10 section 1222 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
2

•HR 1235 IH

1 (relating to other terms relating to capital gains and

2 losses) are each amended by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and

3 inserting ‘‘6 months’’.

4 (2) CAPITAL LOSSES.—Paragraphs (2) and (4)

5 of section 1222 of such Code are each amended by

6 striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘6 months’’.

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The following pro8 visions of such Code are each amended by striking ‘‘1

9 year’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘6 months’’:

10 (1) Section 1(h)(6)(A)

11 (2) Section 166(d)(1)(B).

12 (3) Section 422(a)(1).

13 (4) Section 423(a)(1).

14 (5) Section 584(c).

15 (6) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 631.

16 (7) Section 642(c)(3).

17 (8) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 702(a).

18 (9) Section 818(b)(1).

19 (10) Section 852(b)(3)(B).

20 (11) Section 857(b)(3)(B).

21 (12) Paragraphs (11) and (12) of section 1223.

22 (13) Section 1231.

23 (14) Subsections (b), (d), and subparagraph

24 (A) of subsection (e)(4) of section 1233.

25 (15) Section 1234(b)(1).
3

•HR 1235 IH

1 (16) Section 1235(a).

2 (17) Section 1246(a)(4).

3 (18) Section 1247(i).

4 (19) Subsections (b) and (g)(2)(C) of section

5 1248.

6 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

7 (1) The first sentence of section 631(a) of such

8 Code is amended by striking ‘‘for a period of more

9 than 1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘on the first day of such

10 year and for a period of more than 6 months before

11 such cutting’’.

12 (2) Section 1231(b)(3)(B) of such Code is

13 amended by striking ‘‘12 months’’ and inserting ‘‘6

14 months’’.

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to dispositions after the date of

17 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Air Line Pilots Association,

International

v. Civil No. 04-cv-331-JD

Guilford Transportation

Industries, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

The plaintiff’s motion to continue the discovery and trial

in this case due to the unavailability of John Nadolny (document

no. 140) is denied for the reasons stated during a telephone

conference with counsel on June 8, 2006. This denial is without

prejudice to renew the motion should circumstances warrant. 

The plaintiff will be required to make a good faith effort

to develop its case through other sources that are currently

available to it. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 9, 2006

cc: R. Matthew Cairns, Esquire

Julie P. Glass, Esquire

Eric L. Hirschhorn, Esquire

Marie M. McPartlin, Esquire

Marcus C. Migliore, Esquire

William G. Miossi, Esquire

Gina M. Petro, Esquire

Andrew W. Serell, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00331-JD Document 148 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 1