alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, August 1-5, 20Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 997,615 21,815 52,071 608,833 268,438 15,620 10,072 Number of loans 19,594 404 1,870 10,899 4,583 782 123 Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.47 8.88 11.43 16.70 10.37 10.34 230.62 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.57 7.31 7.19 6.76 .34 4.28 70.93 

Weighted average risk rating3 3.21 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 6.49 6.01 6.65 6.40 6.60 7.89 7.72 

 Standard error5 .21 .47 .18 .27 .26 .33 .17 

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.23 6.61 7.09 7.23 7.12 8.56 7.76  25th percentile 5.90 5.39 6.18 5.38 6.17 6.96 7.76  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.34 7.11 6.03 6.41 6.11 7.79 n.a Other livestock 6.69 5.37 6.52 6.88 6.24 8.43 8.58  Other current operating expenses7 6.82 5.64 6.89 6.80 6.84 8.02 8.00 

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.79 n.a. 7.15 6.80 6.74 7.47 6.63  Farm real estate 7.07 n.a. 7.05 6.95 6.99 n.a. 7.79  Other8 5.66 6.08 6.37 5.26 6.27 7.52 7.24 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.14 16.21 45.91 78.38 96.24 76.43 79.50  Under commitment 84.29 99.26 77.01 80.32 95.74 79.86 12.73  Callable 22.84 77.96 58.99 23.74 6.59 11.82 84.18  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 3.61 23.67 19.97 2.20 2.63 .10 n.a Other livestock 10.41 19.33 4.77 12.23 8.12 2.29 3.21  Other current operating expenses7 36.31 39.40 56.22 34.38 36.34 69.86 .88 

 Farm machinery and equipment 17.14 n.a. 2.11 17.31 23.66 2.56 2.07  Farm real estate 6.13 n.a. 4.50 7.18 2.43 n.a. 81.05  Other8 26.40 17.60 12.44 26.69 26.82 25.20 12.80 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 6.89 n.a. 9.07 7.00 3.71 11.76 84.15  Other 88.32 96.14 83.03 89.40 89.42 88.20 15.80  Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
*186*La. 1041

#### BONANNO v. DECEDUE.

No. 34215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 29, 1937.

*757B. M. Goodman, of New Orleans, for appellant.

FOURNET, Justice.

This is a suit for divorce instituted by the wife against her husband on the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed on July 8, 1936. The defendant was served personally with citation and a copy of the petition, but he failed to appear. A preliminary default was timely entered, and, after hearing testimony of plaintiff and two witnesses in support of her allegations, the trial judge refused to confirm the default and dismissed plaintiff’s suit. She has appealed.

The record shows that there was never any issue born of the marriage and no property was acquired during the community. Two young men, who were old friends of the plaintiff’s family (one of whom had been calling on plaintiff’s sister for several years), and who were acquainted with the defendant, testified that they went to the place whefe the defendant operated a race-horse book; that at his invitation they went to a show and after-wards to an immoral house on 1334 Marais street; and that defendant went into the place and remained a half-hour, while they remained outside. It also appears that the couple was not happily married, and it was only after the witnesses were apprised of the domestic difficulties and were appealed to by the plaintiff that they told what they knew.

 The trial judge, however, was of the opinion that a witness who reveals the infidelity of a friend is unworthy of belief, and refused to grant the divorce. If this rule were followed by courts, there would be very few instances where a divorce could be granted on the ground of adultery. While evidence of this character is often viewed with suspicion and should always be considered with great caution, there is nothing incredible about the testimony of the two witnesses. Although the trial judge questioned one of the witnesses, he failed to extract anything of an inconsistent or contradictory nature in the testimony. Therefore, in the absence of any •evidence in the record to indicate that the testimony was false or unreliable, and as the husband did not appear to defend himself against the charges, although he was ^personally served with citation and a copy of the petition, it is our opinion that the testimony should be accepted. See Schmalz v. Schmalz, 146 La. 876, 84 So. 166; Ledner v. Caddo Transfer & Warehouse Co. et al., 14 La.App. 366, 372, 124 So. 712; Becker v. Hollywood Theatre et al. (La.App.) 155 So. 522.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower, court is annulled and reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Mrs. Thelma BonannO', and against defendant, Samuel P. Decedue, granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii between them; defendant to pay all costs of court.
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | .  | .     |
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Notices 54663 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

United States Mint 

Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee 

September 2008 Public Meeting 

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage 

Advisory Committee September 2008 

Public Meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to United States 

Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the 

United States Mint announces the 

Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee 

(CCAC) public meeting scheduled for 

September 24, 2008. 

Date: September 24, 2008. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. 

Location: United States Mint, 801 9th 

Street, NW., 2nd Floor, Conference 

Room A, Washington, DC 20220. 

Subject: Review reverse candidate 

designs for the President George W. 

Bush Second Term Medal, and other 

business as appropriate. 

Interested persons should call 202– 

354–7502 for the latest update on 

meeting time and room location. 

In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, 

the CCAC: 

• Advises the Secretary of the 

Treasury on any theme or design 

proposals relating to circulating coinage, 

bullion coinage, Congressional Gold 

Medals, and national and other medals. 

• Advises the Secretary of the 

Treasury with regard to the events, 

persons, or places to be commemorated 

by the issuance of commemorative coins 

in each of the five calendar years 

succeeding the year in which a 

commemorative coin designation is 

made. 

• Makes recommendations with 

respect to the mintage level for any 

commemorative coin recommended. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff 

Northup, United States Mint Liaison to 

the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354– 

7200. 

Any member of the public interested 

in submitting matters for the CCAC’s 

consideration is invited to submit them 

by fax to the following number: 202– 

756–6830. 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C). 

Edmund C. Moy, 

Director, United States Mint. 

[FR Doc. E8–22056 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55202-55203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22321]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 18, 2008.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 24, 
2008 to be assured of consideration.
    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
    OMB Number: 1506-0015.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Suspicious Activity Report by Money Services Business.
    Form: FinCEN 109.
    Description: Regulations under 31 CFR 103.20 require Money Services 
Business's to report suspicious

[[Page 55203]]

transactions to the Department of the Treasury.
    Respondents: Individuals or household.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 878,400 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Russell Stephenson (202) 354-6012, Department of 
the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, 
Vienna, VA 22183.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-22321 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-51-01-SM

Toan K. Nguyen

O R D E R

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

trial is granted (document 21). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2008

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

later than January 3, 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: February 22, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 23 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 ____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 21, 2007

cc: Richard Monteith, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00051-SM Document 23 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.3


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


This Second Amendment to Executive Employment
Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of June 4, 2019, amends that certain Executive Employment Agreement (the
“Agreement”), dated as of November 27, 2013, as amended by that Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement,
dated as of July 11, 2016, by and between CohBar, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Jeffrey
Biunno. The Company and Mr. Biunno hereby agree to amend the provisions of the Agreement as follows:


 


1. Section
6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


6. Bonus. You may
also be eligible for a yearly target bonus of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of Your Base Salary (“Target Bonus”)
or such other amount as may be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors from time to
time. Whether You receive a Target Bonus shall depend on personal and/or Company performance criteria established by the Board
in its discretion. Decisions on the grant of a Target Bonus, the criteria under which the Target Bonus shall be awarded, the achievement
of such criteria, the amount of any Target Bonus earned, and the timing of the Target bonus payment are solely within the discretion
of the Board. Any Target Bonus payment made to You will be subject to the normal and/or authorized deductions and withholdings.


 


2. Except
as otherwise set forth herein the Agreement will remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


[remainder of page intentionally left
blank]


 




     


     


    

 


EXECUTED as of this 4th day of June, 2019.


 


	 	COHBAR,
    INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Steven Engle
	 	Name: 	Steven Engle
	 	Title:	CEO


 


	 	JEFFREY
    BIUNNO
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Jeffrey Biunno
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1645 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1645

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to designate certified 
 diabetes educators recognized by the National Certification Board of 
 Diabetes Educators as certified providers for purposes of outpatient 
   diabetes education services under part B of the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms. DeGette) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to designate certified 
 diabetes educators recognized by the National Certification Board of 
 Diabetes Educators as certified providers for purposes of outpatient 
   diabetes education services under part B of the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTIFIED DIABETES EDUCATORS AS CERTIFIED 
              PROVIDERS OF MEDICARE OUTPATIENT SELF-MANAGEMENT TRAINING 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(qq)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(qq)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and includes a 
        certified diabetes educator who has been recognized by the 
        National Certification Board of Diabetes Educators'' before the 
        semicolon at the end; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``or is a certified diabetes educator 
        recognized by the National Certification Board of Diabetes 
        Educators''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
diabetes outpatient self-management training services furnished on or 
after January 1, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Philip Giroux

V .

Town of Danbury, et al .

No . 06-fp-25 0

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-250-PB .

SO ORDERED .

am R. Muirhead

Date : July 14, 2006

nzted States Magistrate Judg e

cc : Philip Giroux, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00250-PB Document 4 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1982...... 2 3 3 3 11

1983...... 1 1 2 3 7

1984...... 3 7 10 12 32

1985...... 12 21 17 18 68

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 0 1

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PIYUSH G. PATEL, DAVID J. KIRKPATRICK, 

ERIC JAEGER, LAWRENCE COLLINS, 

MICHAEL A. SKUBISZ, JERRY A. 

SHANAHAN, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 01:07-00039-SM 

DEFENDANT ERIC JAEGER’S PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST

NOW COMES Defendant Eric Jaeger, by his undersigned counsel, and respectfully submits the 

following list of potential witnesses with respect to the above-captioned matter. 

1. James Boyer, Boston, MA 

2. Dick Bussiere, Andover, MA 

3. Tom Eggemeier, Unknown 

4. Donna Ferrera, Plaistow, NH 

5. Ron Gula, Columbia, MD 

6. Eric Jaeger, Madbury, NH 

7. John Merrill Keefer, San Ramon, CA 

8. John Kern, Los Altos Hills, CA 

9. David Kirkpatrick, c/o Lucy Karl, Esq., Concord NH 

10. Lisa Lentz, Rochester, NH 

11. Mike Leutkemeyer, Jupiter, FL 

12. Tom Louriero, Lee, NH 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 291 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 3
13. Matt Murphy, San Marcos, TX 

14. Piyush Patel, c/o Diana Lloyd Esq., Boston, MA 

15. Doug Patteson, Strafford, NH 

16. Michael Skubisz, Wakefield, NH 

17. Per Suneby, Wellesley, MA 

18. David Wilson, Boston, MA 

In addition to these potential witnesses, Mr. Jaeger reserves the right to supplement this list in 

response to any other party’s pretrial statements/disclosures, or to rebut evidence adduced, and 

arguments made, during Plaintiff’s case-in-chief. 

January 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

ERIC JAEGER, 

By his attorneys, 

/s/ Jonathan A. Shapiro 

Jonathan A. Shapiro 

Elizabeth Skey (admitted pro hac vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

950 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

(650) 858-6000 

Jeffrey B. Rudman (admitted pro hac vice) 

James W. Prendergast (admitted pro hac vice) 

Peter A. Spaeth (admitted pro hac vice) 

James T. Lux (admitted pro hac vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

(617) 526-6000 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 291 Filed 01/20/12 Page 2 of 3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Elizabeth H. Skey, hereby certify that Defendant Eric Jaeger’s Witness List, filed 

through the ECF system, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on 

the Notice of Electronic Filing and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered 

participants on January 20, 2012. 

/s/ Elizabeth H. Skey

Elizabeth H. Skey 

Dated: January 20, 2012 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 291 Filed 01/20/12 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-13-01-JD

Robert Underwood

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

9) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 15, 2007

cc: Mark Howard, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00013-JD Document 10 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
May 4, 2005

/s/ WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark Arsenault

v. Civil No. 07-360-JL

American General Life 

Insurance Company

 O R D E R

Having reviewed the motion (document #16), the objection

(document #19), the reply (document #24), and all the exhibits

thereto, as well as having presided over the motion practice

regarding the requested protective order, the court is concerned

with the defendant’s approach to discovery in this case. 

After having failed to address the issue of a protective

order in its Local Rule 26.1 Discovery Plan, the defendant

engaged in a lengthy dispute over a protective order which

resulted in a court hearing. Similarly, after stipulating to the

“standard” track in its Local Rule 26.1 Discovery Plan, the

defendant now suggests staying the proceedings (including

discovery) regarding the plaintiff’s bad faith claim. That

suggestion--presented to the court not in a motion, but rather in

an objection to a largely meritorious motion to compel--is not

well-received by the court. 

Still, while the court does not consider the plaintiff’s

motion to compel to be premature, it is not clear that the

Case 1:07-cv-00360-JL Document 26 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

parties have undertaken in earnest the type of efforts

contemplated by Rule 37 to resolve this discovery dispute. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); 37(d)(1)(B).

Thus, the parties are ordered to confer in a good faith

attempt to resolve the issues raised by the defendant’s answers

to interrogatories and responses to document requests. On or

before May 14, 2008, the parties shall jointly certify to the

court that they have so conferred, and inform the court regarding

any interrogatory or document request dispute which remains

unresolved. The plaintiff is entitled to take discovery

regarding all claims set forth in the complaint, including the

“bad faith” claim. Upon receipt of the parties’ joint

certification as described above, the court will resolve any

remaining disputed interrogatories or document requests. If, and

only if, there still remain matters to be resolved, the court

will sua sponte consider the imposition of sanctions under Rule

37(a)(5).

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 7, 2008

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq.

Christopher Cole, Esq.

Christopher C. Frost, Esq.

Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq.

Brian David Thomas, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00360-JL Document 26 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2