alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-31082.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

*407Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Brian Johnson pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one charge of conspiracy to possess ecstasy with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Johnson now appeals the district court’s judgment.

In the sole issue he raises on appeal, Johnson argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allowing Johnson to sign the factual basis that accompanied his plea agreement. Johnson acknowledged in the factual basis that he was involved with cocaine hydrochloride, but Johnson asserts that he was not involved with this drug.

As a general rule, this court declines to review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, although we may do so in exceptional cases. *See United States v. Higdon,*882 F.2d 812, 314 (5th Cir.1987); *United States v. Gibson,*55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.1995); *see also Massaro v. United States,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). This is not the exceptional case. Accordingly, we decline to review Johnson’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 32**

 

ISONICSCORPORATION

 

Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

PrincipalExecutive Officer

 

To my knowledge: thequarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,2005, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IsonicsCorporation for the periods presented.

 

 
| December 15, 2005              |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
|                                |
| /s/ James E. Alexander              |   |
| James E. Alexander, Chief Executive |
| Officer                             |

 

 

Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

PrincipalFinancial Officer

 

To my knowledge: thequarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,2005, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IsonicsCorporation for the periods presented.

 

 
| December 15, 2005              |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
|                                |
| /s/ John Sakys                      |   |
| John Sakys, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2159

To provide for grants to States for enacting statewide laws regulating public

playgrounds consistent with playground safety guidelines established by

the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 2001

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To provide for grants to States for enacting statewide laws

regulating public playgrounds consistent with playground

safety guidelines established by the Consumer Product

Safety Commission.

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 referred to as the ‘‘Safe Playgrounds

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 2159 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANT FOR ENACTING PLAYGROUND SAFETY

2 STANDARDS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of ap4 propriations for this purpose, the Consumer Product Safe5 ty Commission shall provide a grant in the amount of

6 $1,000,000 to any State which meets the requirements of

7 subsection (b).

8 (b) ELIGIBILITY.—A State is eligible for a grant

9 under subsection (a) if, not more than 5 years after the

10 date of enactment of this Act, such State has enacted a

11 statewide law regulating public playgrounds consistent

12 with the guidelines contained in the Handbook for Public

13 Playground Safety, published by the Consumer Product

14 Safety Commission, or other playground safety guidelines

15 established by the Commission.

16 (c) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—A State receiving a

17 grant under this Act shall use the grant to upgrade public

18 playgrounds in accordance with the guidelines described

19 in subsection (b).

20 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

21 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Con22 sumer Product Safety Commission for carrying out this

23 Act $50,000,000 for the period encompassing fiscal years

24 2002 through 2006.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

 v.

FNU Swartout

Civil No. 07-cv-117-JL

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith 

approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. 

Johnstone dated September 12, 2014.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

Chief Judge

Date: October 17, 2014

cc: Kevin D. Hall, Pro se

Michael A. Pignatelli, Esq.

Kenneth C. Bartholomew, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00117-JL Document 48 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 1
No. 99-30251

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30251

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLAUDE ANTANNE GRIFFIN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No.97-CV-1095

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

January 17, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Claude Antanne Griffin, Jr., appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his § 2255 motion. Griffin, however, failed to

prove his incompetency to stand trial by a preponderance of the

evidence. See Washington v. Johnson, 90 F.3d 945, 950 (5th Cir.

1996). Because Griffin was not incompetent to stand trial, his

trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing

to investigate his competency. See Carter v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 

452, 464 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1567 (1998). 

Griffin has not demonstrated error on the part of the district
No. 99-30251

-2-

court. This judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-228-01-PB 

Kurt Coriaty

O R D E R 

On June 23, 2010, defendant appeared for a Aprobable cause@

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on two alleged violations of 

conditions of supervision. 

Defendant stipulated to probable cause on the violations. I 

therefore find probable cause to hold him for a revocation 

hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing 

by clear and convincing evidence that he will not flee and that 

he poses no danger to any other person or to the community. 

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing and for the 

reasons stated on the record, I find the defendant has failed to 

meet this burden and that there are no conditions which are 

likely to assure the safety of the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained 

pending a final revocation hearing. I recommend that the 

defendant be placed in the T.C. Program at the Strafford County 

Case 1:07-cr-00228-PB Document 19 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 2
 2 

House of Corrections. In the event that the defendant 

successfully completes the T.C. Program, I will entertain a 

request to revisit this detention order. 

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 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Landya B. McCafferty 

Landya B. McCafferty 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: June 24, 2010 

cc: Jennifer C. Davis, Esq. 

 Jeffrey S. Levin 

 U.S. Marshal 

 U.S. Probation 

Case 1:07-cr-00228-PB Document 19 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM     Document 8     Filed 12/30/08     Page 1 of 5

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM     Document 8     Filed 12/30/08     Page 2 of 5

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM     Document 8     Filed 12/30/08     Page 3 of 5

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM     Document 8     Filed 12/30/08     Page 4 of 5

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM     Document 8     Filed 12/30/08     Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>
 
ACUSON CORPORATION                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Acuson Corporation has the following wholly-owned subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<C>    <S>
   1.  Acuson Pty. Ltd., organized under the laws of Australia.
   2.  Acuson GesmbH, organized under the laws of Austria.
   3.  Acuson Belgium SA/NV, organized under the laws of Belgium.
   4.  Acuson Canada Ltd., organized under the laws of Ontario, Canada.
   5.  Acuson A/S, organized under the laws of Denmark.
   6.  Acuson OY, organized under the laws of Finland.
   7.  Acuson S.A.R.L., organized under the laws of France.
   8.  Acuson GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany.
   9.  Acuson Hong Kong Ltd., organized under the laws of Hong Kong.
  10.  Acuson S.p.A., organized under the laws of Italy.
  11.  Acuson Nippon K.K., organized under the laws of Japan.
  12.  Acuson A/S, organized under the laws of Norway.
  13.  Acuson Singapore Ltd., organized under the laws of Singapore.
  14.  Acuson Iberica SA, organized under the laws of Spain.
  15.  Acuson AB, organized under the laws of Sweden.
  16.  Acuson Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.
  17.  Acuson Foreign Sales Corporation, organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands.
  18.  Acuson International Sales Corporation, organized under the laws of the State of California.
  19.  Acuson Worldwide Sales Corporation, organized under the laws of the State of California.
  20.  Sound Technology, Inc., organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.
</TABLE>
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

2006...... 20 2 6 1 12 .042 .003 .012 .002 .023

2007...... 8 -3 0 5 6 .015 -.006 .000 .009 .011

2008...... n.a. 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. .008 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
8

A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMonths

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1995...... 9.9 8.7 9.9 8.5 26.5 10.0 9.0 10.8 12.1 8.2 1996...... 8.5 7.8 11.3 7.6 29.4 9.2 8.6 10.5 12.1 7.3 1997...... 9.9 9.1 11.0 10.7 30.6 7.4 8.8 11.6 12.4 8.8 1998...... 9.8 8.0 10.3 9.9 27.5 6.8 8.8 11.3 12.5 8.7 1999...... 11.5 8.0 11.0 11.3 20.1 10.5 9.8 11.2 12.4 11.4 2000...... 11.2 8.0 10.8 9.5 22.4 13.2 9.7 11.5 11.1 11.4 2001...... 13.2 8.5 14.0 10.3 24.3 15.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 14.1 2002...... 11.2 8.6 11.5 10.2 23.3 11.7 9.4 10.9 12.5 10.8 2003...... 12.5 8.5 9.4 11.1 26.5 14.4 9.5 11.2 12.7 12.9 2004...... 11.9 9.2 11.9 10.0 23.3 12.0 9.6 11.8 12.9 11.7 2005...... 12.9 9.4 10.0 9.9 18.9 18.3 9.3 11.4 13.5 13.1 2006...... 12.7 8.7 12.9 10.0 15.9 18.3 9.6 11.7 12.6 13.1 2003: Q3... 10.4 8.4 6.4 8.9 21.1 12.4 9.2 10.3 11.1 10.3  Q4... 11.4 9.0 9.9 9.4 24.0 15.7 7.9 10.4 10.6 12.3 2004: Q1... 14.1 7.9 12.4 11.6 28.9 16.8 9.8 12.9 16.0 13.9  Q2... 10.4 8.6 10.5 10.3 18.4 9.2 10.8 11.9 12.2 9.5  Q3... 10.4 7.1 10.6 8.8 27.2 7.0 9.6 12.9 11.7 9.8  Q4... 11.9 10.2 13.2 8.5 17.8 16.9 7.7 9.3 11.1 12.6 2005: Q1... 13.3 10.8 9.9 11.1 46.8 16.5 8.7 12.1 15.2 13.0  Q2... 13.2 9.5 10.5 10.5 14.7 17.4 10.8 12.3 12.6 13.6  Q3... 10.8 8.8 10.0 9.0 13.6 12.8 8.1 11.0 12.7 10.4  Q4... 14.4 8.9 9.8 8.2 28.1 32.4 9.3 9.8 13.4 15.7 2006: Q1... 13.2 7.6 21.2 10.8 21.8 17.0 10.4 13.4 14.0 13.2  Q2... 11.6 8.2 10.1 10.4 12.1 15.0 11.0 12.1 13.2 11.1  Q3... 13.9 9.4 9.3 9.3 24.6 20.2 8.5 11.2 11.3 15.3  Q4... 12.5 9.0 11.4 9.0 14.3 20.6 7.9 9.9 11.4 13.4 2007: Q1... 13.5 10.3 16.5 10.8 33.0 16.3 9.6 14.2 12.5 13.8  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Commercial Time



 Exhibit 10.101 
  
 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL TIME 
  
 This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2004 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.
(“Mission”) is made to that certain Agreement for Sale of Commercial Time dated as of June 1, 1999 by and between Mission (formerly known as Mission Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, Inc.) and Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P. (the
“Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission is the licensee of
television broadcast station KJTL, Wichita Falls, Texas and low power television station KJBO-LP, Wichita Falls, Texas; 
  
 WHEREAS, Nexstar, as successor to Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P. is the licensee of television broadcast station KFDX-TV, Wichita Falls,
Texas; 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar entered into the Agreement
for their mutual benefit; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in
consideration of the foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Nexstar has assumed all of Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P.’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2. Paragraph 3 and Schedule A of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: “Payments. During the term of this
Agreement, from the revenues that Nexstar collects pursuant to this Agreement, Nexstar will pay seventy (70) percent to Mission (the “Monthly Payment”). In exchange for the services Nexstar provides under this Agreement, Nexstar will
retain thirty (30) percent of the revenues it collects as its fee for such services. 
  
 3. These revised payment terms are effective as of the date hereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ G. Robert Thompson

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 G. Robert Thompson

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President
#### 2365 Lorillard Corp., Plaintiff, v Alexandra Krumszyn et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Alexandra Krumszyn, Appellant, v 2365 Lorillard Corp., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

[806 NYS2d 870]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of the action No. 2 defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documentary evidence adduced by the action No. 2 defendants showed that plaintiff-appellant duly transferred the subject real property in November 1996 so as to avoid the judicial process brought against her by reason of the many serious violations issued against the premises as well as to escape imprisonment for criminal contempt. Plaintiffs unsupported assertion that the 1996 transfer was induced by fraud was insufficient to raise any triable issue *(see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]) Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
#### WREN v. BROCK.

No. 2214.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 4, 1941.

Ellis & Bostick, of Amite, for appellant.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

We are informed by the litigants of this case that the plaintiff has appealed from a judgment in her favor recognizing her as an ordinary creditor of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company in liquidation.

We find, after a careful perusal of the transcript, two minute entries referring to judgment being rendered but fail to find any original or certified copy of any signed judgment.

The following records and documents were presumably offered to be filed in evidence and are also lacking and not included in the transcript: (1) Record in the “Succession of Henderson Wren and Re; Minor No. 208 of the Docket of this court”; (2) “Two provisional accounts filed by the Amite Bank & Trust Co., Administrator, and sworn to by PI. S. Weigel, Trust Officer, on June 1, 1929, and a similar account sworn to by Mr. Weigel, Trust Officer, before T. E. Dollunde on the 22nd day of April, 1931”; (3) “Ap7 pointment of the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company as the tutor to the minor, and also the appointment of the Guaranty Bank & Trust Company”; (4) “The transfer of the Assets of the Amite Bank. & Trust Company to the Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Company.”

This case cannot be considered and decided by us without these records; especially in the absence of a signed judgment, the very basis of an appeal. We must maintain regularity and consistency in our proceedings and cannot close our eyes to such glaring defects in the transcript.

For these reasons, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on our own motion, at the cost of appellant.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bethel Jones, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 702]

*725Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 14, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to impeach their own eyewitness with a prior inconsistent statement contained on an audiotape is unpreserved for appellate review because the ground urged by the defendant on appeal was not specifically raised in an objection made to the trial court *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Solomon,*16 AD3d 701, 702 [2005]; *People v Smith,*294 AD2d 381 [2002]). In any event, the contention is without merit. In his pretrial audiotaped sworn statement, the eyewitness stated that he saw the defendant shoot the victim, while at trial, the eyewitness testified that he did not see who shot the victim and he did not observe the defendant at the scene when the shooting occurred. Thus, the eyewitness’s trial testimony tended to disprove the People’s case and affirmatively damaged the People’s position. Accordingly, the People were properly permitted to employ the tape to impeach the eyewitness pursuant to CPL 60.35 (1) *(see People v Magee,*128 AD2d 811 [1987]; *see also People v French,*237 AD2d 944, 945 [1997]; *People v Busiello,*234 AD2d 557 [1996]; *People v Broomfield,*163 AD2d 403, 403-404 [1990]; *cf. People v Fitzpatrick,*40 NY2d 44, 51 [1976]).

Also unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818, 819-820 [1982]; *People v Pettus,*22 AD3d 869 [2005]; *People v Francis,*137 AD2d 553 [1988]) is the defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to provide a timely or sufficiently specific instruction to the jury that it was to consider the tape only for purposes of impeachment, and not as evidence-in-chief *(see*CPL 60.35 [2]). In any event, the court’s instruction in this regard was adequate *(see People v Andujar,*290 AD2d 654, 657 [2002]; *People v Bass,*255 AD2d 689 [1998]; *People v Broomfield, supra*at 404).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of *726counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *see also People v Taylor,*1 NY3d 174 [2003]; *People v Ellis,*81 NY2d 854 [1993]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-91-PB

Jonathan Chery

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for October 7, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations. 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 October 7, 2008 to December 2, 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

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

Case 1:08-cr-00091-PB Document 25 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 30, 2008

cc: Scott F. Gleason, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00091-PB Document 25 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2