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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Theresa D’Jamoos, as Executrix of

the Estate of Dawn Weingeroff, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 08-cv-108-SM

Atlas Aircraft Center, Inc. and

Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd.,

Defendants

O R D E R

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was

filed in this case. Plaintiff responded that limited discovery

relative to jurisdictional facts was necessary before the issue

could be adequately addressed. That discovery was allowed, and a

response to the motion was due on February 27, 2009. The parties

have since filed an assented-to motion for additional time to

complete the limited discovery until March 23, 2009, and the time

for filing a response to April 23, 2009. The Magistrate Judge

granted that motion, which is fine. But the motion is not ripe

and will not be ripe until after April 23, 2009 (assuming no

further delays). There is no reason to maintain this aged motion

on the docket as if it could be resolved when in reality it

cannot, and, as the Administrative Office maintains arcane

accounting methods that would be distorted by carrying this

motion beyond March 31, 2009, as one that could have been but was

Case 1:08-cv-00108-SM Document 47 Filed 02/02/09 Page 1 of 2
2

not timely resolved, the motion (document no. 32) is hereby

denied, without prejudice to renewing it following completion of

jurisdictional discovery, if based upon the results of that

discovery, it can be refiled in good faith.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 2, 2009

cc: Jeffrey Baltruzak

Julie L. Belanger, Esq.

Bruce J. Berman, Esq.

Mark B. Decof

Patrick T. Jones, Esq.

William J. Katt, Esq.

Howard B. Klein, Esq.

Garry R. Lane, Esq.

Michael P. Lehman, Esq.

Danial A. Nelson, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq.

Peter J. Schneider, Esq.

Anthony Tarricone, Esq.

Thomas R. Watson, Esq.

Corey J. Wright

Case 1:08-cv-00108-SM Document 47 Filed 02/02/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-162-PB

Andre Warren

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to reschedule the plea hearing as defendant is in

custody and will not be returned to New Hampshire until late

January, and counsel is unavailable for a hearing until after

February 5th. The government does not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 5, 2008 to March 4, 2008. 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 

Case 1:06-cr-00162-PB Document 24 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

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

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 28, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00162-PB Document 24 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2
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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alvin J. Catz, Chief Financial Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted
pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alvin J. Catz                              
|Alvin J. Catz                                  
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director
|August 3, 2005                                 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



28
217 La. 891

#### FONTENOT v. BABINEAUX et al.

No. 39502.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1950.

William R. Tete, of Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Joe J. Tritico, and Bass & Brame, all of Lake Charles, for defendants-appellees.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The appeal in this case was transferred to this court by order of the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit on the joint motion of the parties litigant declaring simply that the amount in dispute between the parties is. in excess of $2,000.”

The appeal to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit was originally taken by the plaintiff, John C. Fontenot, from a judgment of the lower court dismissing the proceedings instituted by him under the provisions- of Section 2155 of the Revised Statutes of 1870 to eject the defendants, Jesse and Harry Babineaux, from the premises leased by him at the corner of Cities Service and Maplewood Parish roads in Calcasieu Parish for an implied breach of the contract of lease.

This lease was originally executed by the plaintiff in favor of the Develins Corporation on March 1, 1947, for a term' of five years (with provisions for renewal) arid was assigned to the present defendants in November of 1947 with the approval of the plaintiff.- As originally rented, the property was a bare lot of ground. The monetary consideration was only $25 a month, but another provision of the contract called for the erection of a frame building on the property that would become the property of the plaintiff regardless of whether the lease was terminated under its own terms or for cause. Complying with this provision, the defendants are now operating a business there and the implied breach of the contract is based upon the allegation of the plaintiff that the business being operated is illegal, consisting of gambling games and devices in open violation of the law.

Clearly the only issue in the case is the right to the possession -of the property before the expiration of the lease and there is no allegation in the petition and no evidence in the record from which it can be concluded the value of this right is in excess of $2,000. This court is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The stipulation of counsel in the joint motion that the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000 is not controlling, being nothing more than a conclusion of counsel without any basis in fact.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, the record to be transmitted there by the appellant within thirty days; otherwise the appeal will be dismissed at appellant’s cost.
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1994: Q1... 56.8 21.2 35.5 -1.5 1.8 -3.4 7.6 6.4 8.3

 Q2... 61.1 21.9 39.2 7.6 3.2 10.2 9.1 6.4 10.7

 Q3... 63.0 22.4 40.6 3.1 2.2 3.6 8.7 7.5 9.3

 Q4... 61.3 22.6 38.7 -2.7 .7 -4.6 6.2 8.2 5.2

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Q2... 88.9 42.9 46.0 5.4 3.6 7.2 5.2 8.3 2.4

 Q3... 91.5 43.9 47.6 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.9 9.2 4.9

 Q4... 92.3 44.5 47.7 .8 1.5 .2 7.1 9.6 4.9

2005: Q1... 89.3 45.0 44.3 -3.2 1.1 -7.2 5.9 8.7 3.3

 Q2... 93.5 46.2 47.3 4.7 2.7 6.6 5.1 7.7 2.7

 Q3... 96.7 47.1 49.5 3.4 2.0 4.8 5.7 7.4 4.0

 Q4... 97.5 47.6 49.9 .9 1.0 .8 5.7 6.9 4.6

2006: Q1... 96.2 48.4 47.7 -1.4 1.8 -4.4 7.7 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 101.0 49.8 51.2 5.1 2.9 7.2 8.1 7.8 8.3

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
II 

Calendar No. 581

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1925

[Report No. 107–264] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site 

Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park 

System, 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. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING WACO MAM4 MOTH SITE AREA. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior, in con6 sultation with the State of Texas, the city of Waco, and 

7 other appropriate organizations, shall carry out a special 
2

HR 1925 RS 

1 resource study regarding the national significance, suit2 ability, and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth 

3 Site Area located in the city of Waco, Texas, as a unit 

4 of the National Park System. 

5 (b) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 

6 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall 

7 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 

8 by this section. 

9 SEC. 2. SUBMISSION OF STUDY RESULTS. 

10 Not later than 3 years after funds are first made 

11 available for this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 

12 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 

13 and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

14 the Senate a report describing the results of the study.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2002. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 

Calendar No. 581

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1925

[Report No. 107–264] 

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the 

suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Reported without amendment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Markem Corporation

v. Case No. 07-cv-06-PB

Zipher, Ltd. et al.

O R D E R

Markem Corporation has filed a Renewed Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s Construction of “Spools.”

In the final sentence of a 36-page order focusing largely on

other issues, I stated that the disputed claim should be read “to

require that at least one spool rotate during the correction

step, but not necessarily both spools.” Markem v. Zipher, et

al., 2008 DNH 161, at 36 (D.N.H. 8/28/08). Markem argues that

this sentence is incorrect because it suggests that the claim

term “spools” should be read to encompass devices in which only a

single spool is rotated to regulate tape tension. I agree with

Markem on this point and now make clear that the term “spools”

means more than one spool rather than a single spool. 

My ruling does not resolve the parties’ related disagreement

as to whether the claim requires that tape tension must be

regulated by the simultaneous rotation of multiple spools. 

Because this issue has not been adequately briefed, I do not 

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 117 Filed 09/01/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

express an opinion on the issue. Instead, the parties may raise

the issue again in connection with their anticipated motions for

summary judgment and I will consider the issue de novo at that

time. 

Markem’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 105) is

granted to the extent that it is consistent with this Order. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 1, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 117 Filed 09/01/09 Page 2 of 2
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID. 

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Vaccine Research Center Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.                     

*Date:*                         October 28, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 3 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Vaccine Research Center, 40 Convent Drive, Conference Room #1207, Bethesda, MD 20892.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Gary J Nabel, MD, PhD, Director, Vaccine Research Center, NIAID/NIH, 40 Convent Drive, Bldg 40, Room 4502, Bethesda, MD 20892, 401-496-1852,                         *gnabel@niaid.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. E8-22852 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 1:08-cv-00061-JL   Document 3   Filed 02/25/08   Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1922

To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and

to extend the ban on transferring such devices to those that were manufactured before the ban became law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 21, 2001

Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr.

BLUMENAUER, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mrs.

JONES of Ohio, Ms. NORTON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. DAVIS

of Illinois, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. NADLER,

Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WYNN, Mr. COYNE, Mr. FRANK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY,

Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. BARRETT of

Wisconsin, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Mr. MORAN of Virginia) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding

devices, and to extend the ban on transferring such devices to those that were manufactured before the ban

became law.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1922 IH

1 SECTION 1. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMU2 NITION FEEDING DEVICES.

3 Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(1) Except as

6 provided in paragraph (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)

7 Except as provided in subparagraph (B)’’;

8 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2) Para9 graph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A)’’;

10 (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import

13 a large capacity ammunition feeding device.’’; and

14 (4) in paragraph (4)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(1)’’ each place it appears

16 and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)’’; and

17 (B) by striking ‘‘(2)’’ and inserting

18 ‘‘(1)(B)’’.

19 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF BAN ON TRANSFERRING LARGE CA20 PACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES TO

21 THOSE THAT WERE MANUFACTURED BEFORE

22 THE BAN BECAME LAW.

23 (a) ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR TRANSFER OF

24 DEVICES LAWFULLY POSSESSED BEFORE ENACTMENT

25 OF THE BAN.—Section 922(w)(1)(B) of title 18, United
3

•HR 1922 IH

1 States Code, as so redesignated by section 1 of this Act,

2 is amended by striking ‘‘or transfer’’.

3 (b) EXPANDED DEFINITION.—Section 921(a)(31)(A)

4 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘manufactured after

5 the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and

6 Law Enforcement Act of 1994’’.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1845

To provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made available under

the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal

year be provided for home heating purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 15, 2001

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee

on Education and the Workforce, 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 provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made

available under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Act of 1981 for any fiscal year be provided for home

heating 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 ‘‘LIHEAP Equity Act

5 of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1845 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 2604(a)(1) of the Low-Income Home Energy

3 Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)(1)) is

4 amended—

5 (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘subpara6 graph (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (B) and

7 (C)’’; and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph:

10 ‘‘(C) Not more than 50 percent of amounts appro11 priated for carrying out this title for any fiscal year shall

12 be provided for home heating purposes.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joel Drown

v. Civil No. 07-202-JD

United States of America

O R D E R

This is a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On May 31, 2006, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty,

pursuant to a plea agreement, to a one-count indictment charging

him with attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 United States

Code, Section 2113(a). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)

the parties agreed that the base offense level for this offense

would be 20 and that there would be a two point increase for

taking the property of a financial institution. The court

accepted these binding stipulations and imposed a sentence of 37

months in prison followed by a two-year term of supervised

release.

The petition and accompanying memorandum are rambling and at

times border on being incoherent. The petitioner appears to

contest the validity of the indictment, the statute under which

he was convicted, and the statutes under which he has been

sentenced. The petitioner also suggests that his counsel was

Case 1:07-cv-00202-JD Document 2 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 2
2

ineffective. However, all of these allegations are too vague and

unsubstantiated to be considered viable.

The court finds that the sentence imposed in this case did

not violate the Constitution or laws of the United States, that

the court had jurisdiction to impose the sentence, that the

sentence was not in excess of the maximum authorized by law, and

that the sentence is not otherwise subject to collateral attack. 

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 13, 2007

cc: Joel Drown, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00202-JD Document 2 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 2