alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0427. TMX FINANCE HOLDINGS, INC. et al. v. DRUMMOND

FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC et al.

In this action between competing conglomerates of auto title loan companies,

the plaintiff appellees alleged the defendant appellants engaged in a nationwide

campaign of unfair competition to steal the appellees’ customers. On May 28, 2015,

the trial court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of the plaintiff appellees,

enjoining the defendant appellants from searching any state’s databases identifying

any customers of the appellees; from entering the parking lots of any of the plaintiff

appellees’ stores; and from soliciting any of the plaintiff appellees’ customers.

In granting the interlocutory injunction, the trial court found (1) there was a

substantial threat the appellees would suffer irreparable injury in the form of lost

customers, lost goodwill; and repeated trespasses; (2) the threatened injury to the

appellees far outweighs any harm to the appellants; (3) an interlocutory injunction

would serve the public interest; and (4) there was a substantial likelihood the

appellees would prevail on the merits of their claims.

As this appeal thus involves the propriety of equitable relief, jurisdiction over

the appeal lies with the Supreme Court. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III

(2); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Heinemann, 268 Ga. 755 (493 SE2d 132)

(1997). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/16/2016

February 16, 2016
Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 1 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 2 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 3 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 4 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 5 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 6 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 7 of 8

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS   Document 73   Filed 01/10/13   USDC Colorado   Page 8 of 8
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Board of Directors
  of TBC Corporation:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 for the Company's 1989
Stock Incentive Plan (Reg. No. 33-43166) and in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 for the Company's 1989 Stock Incentive Plan (Reg. No. 333-48802) of TBC
Corporation of our report dated April 27, 2005, except for Note 4, as to which
the date is August 12, 2005, relating to the financial statements, financial
statements schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
Memphis, Tennessee
August 26, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           16169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   331833
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     130842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                511226
<PP&E>                                          337999
<DEPRECIATION>                                  194131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  669726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           660517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1140
<OTHER-SE>                                        8069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    669726
<SALES>                                         337481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                337481
<CGS>                                           112212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   112212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2117546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1892277
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1892277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1892277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02500-BNB Document 7 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02500-BNB Document 7 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02500-BNB Document 7 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02664-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02664-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02664-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02664-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 358 filed 12/09/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Maynard Quian SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44549.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1972.

*788Cutler & Epps, by Ray Epps, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and William W. Burge, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for robbery by assault; the punishment, fifteen years imprisonment.

On the trial of the case the appellant was represented by retained counsel of his choice. He entered a plea of not guilty before a jury. The jury assessed appellant’s punishment after finding him guilty.

After conviction, the appellant made affidavit that he was too poor to employ counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal. The record contains a transcription of the testimony. The brief of appointed counsel on appeal was filed in the trial court and has been transmitted to this court with the record. The brief filed by appellant’s appointed counsel asserts a familiarity with the record and the law and reaches the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. However, the record does not reflect that a copy of the brief was served upon the appellant as is required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Holder v. State, 469 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Barber v. State, 471 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). This appeal will be abated until the record shows that there has been a compliance with the above cited authorities.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is abated.

Opinion approved by the Court.

MORRISON, J., not participating.
#### ALL AMERICAN SLIDE CORPORATION v. Frank C. BRADY, etc.

No. 6354.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1937.

Bertram Wm. Coltman and Ames, Thiess, Olson & Mecklenburger, all of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

William F. Waugh, of Chicago, HI., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said .stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties in the above entitled appeal, by their respective attorneys of record herein, that said appeal shall be dismissed without costs.

“Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3d day of November, A. D. 1937.”

On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50049

LATREESE TABB, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,

versus

DILLARD, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CV-257)

April 22, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment entered on the jury’s finding of inten tional

infliction of emotional distress is reversed. The district judge

erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and
judgment J.N.O.V. on this claim. The evidence does not meet the

standard for outrageous conduct under Texas law. The judgment is

otherwise affirmed in all respects.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW

BRIAN M. GROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CLEMENTS, 

JOHN DAVIS,

ELLEN BLACKMORE,

MARY CARTER, 

THOMAS FISHER,

MARY BETH KALYMER,

KERRY BARONI,

MARCIA MORTIN (aka DENIES MORTIN),

ARISTEDES ZAVARES,

STEVE M. VICALVI,

P. LASTRELL,

JOHN DOE,

JANE DOE, and

ANTHONY DECESARO,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compell [sic] Medical, Dental and Mental Health Records (Docket No. 46) is

denied. Plaintiff has made no showing that defendants are likely to destroy or alter

plaintiff’s medical records. 

Date: April 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW Document 51 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02696–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BLACK AND MCDONALD/CUSTOM LIGHTING SERVICES, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion Seeking Leave to File Sealed Documents.”

(Doc. No. 41, filed May 8, 2012.) On April 20, 2012, the court directed the Clerk of Court to

restrict access to Plaintiff’s “Sealed and Confidential Conventional Submission #2 – Testimony

and Affidavit” (Doc. No. 31-2) and directed Plaintiff to file an appropriate motion to restrict

access to this document, consistent with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2B, no later than April 30, 2012. 

On May 1, 2012, the court extended the time for Plaintiff to file an appropriate motion to restrict

to May 8, 2012. (See Minute Order, Doc. No. 38.) 

Plaintiff’s present Motion appears to be an attempt to comply with the court’s April 20, 2012

Minute Order. However, Plaintiff’s Motion does not address any of the Local Rule 7.2B factors,

nor does it otherwise explain why it is necessary to restrict access to her “Sealed and

Confidential Conventional Submission.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion Seeking Leave to File

Sealed Documents” (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to un-restrict

Plaintiff’s “Sealed and Confidential Conventional Submission #2 – Testimony and Affidavit”

(Doc. No. 31-2).

Dated: May 9, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 44 Filed 05/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00172-CR

JAMES STANTON RUDOLPH,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-706-C2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

James Stanton Rudolph filed a notice of appeal for his convictions for aggravated 

sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. On February 15, 2018, the State filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State informed this Court that the parties 

agreed to modify the terms of Rudolph’s community supervision and that the trial court 

entered an order modifying the terms of community supervision on February 8, 2018. 

This Court requested a response from Appellant on the motion. Appellant filed a 
Rudolph v. State Page 2

response on February 22, 2018 agreeing that the trial court modified the conditions of his 

community supervision and thereby eliminating the error complained of on appeal. 

Appellant agreed that the modification rendered the appeal moot. Because the sole issue 

on appeal is moot, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is 

dismissed. Dismissal of the appeals would not prevent a party from seeking relief to 

which it would otherwise be entitled.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 7, 2018

Do not publish

[CR25]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02449-BNB-KMT

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 7,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING SOOPERS, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

As directed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 12-1409, in

its opinion and order issued on February 28, 2014, 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.#16, filed 02/17/2012] and its

request to confirm and enforce the arbitration award of Arbitrator Harold G. Wren issued on 

June 3, 2011, are GRANTED. Judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff and against the

defendant enforcing the award;

(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Doc #17, filed

02/17/2012] is DENIED; 

(3) The order awarding defendant its costs [Doc. #24, p. 13, ¶ c] is VACATED; and

(4) The plaintiff may have its costs, to be taxed and allowed in the time and manner

prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Case 1:11-cv-02449-BNB-KMT Document 40 Filed 03/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated March 24, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02449-BNB-KMT Document 40 Filed 03/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











I, Glen
R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 of CVD Equipment
Corporation (the “Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CVD Equipment
Corporation.





Dated:
      November 16, 2009
            /s/
      Glen R. CharlesGlen
      R. CharlesChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61059 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–92] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–92 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
61060 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61061 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.032</GPH>
61062 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61063 

[FR Doc. E8–24403 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.034</GPH>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 05, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11471

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00075-CV-TWT-1

RAMSEY L. WRIGHT, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

ROSE WILLIAMS, 

Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(December 5, 2007)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Ramsey L. Wright, a Georgia inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the sua

sponte dismissal of his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a

certificate of appealability to decide the following issue: “Whether the district

court erred in sua sponte dismissing as procedurally barred appellant’s claim that

the state court improperly enhanced his sentence based on an uncounseled prior

conviction.” Wright argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his

habeas petition as procedurally barred because a sentence based on an uncounseled

prior conviction is void even if no objection was made at sentencing. We affirm. 

We review de novo the dismissal of a habeas petition. See Sims v.

Singletary, 155 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 1998). 

District courts are required to dismiss a habeas petition summarily “[i]f it

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4. When a state prisoner fails to present

his claim in state court, the federal habeas court cannot hear the merits of the claim

absent a showing of cause for the default and actual prejudice or proof that the

failure to consider the claim would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. 

Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1302–03, 1306 (11th Cir. 1999). “A ‘fundamental

miscarriage of justice’ occurs in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional
3

violation has resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent.” 

Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880, 892 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Wright’s argument that a void sentence is not subject to procedural default is

without merit. Wright cites our decision in Gonzalez v. Abbott, 967 F.2d 1499,

1504 (11th Cir. 1992), for the proposition that a void conviction cannot be a legal

cause of imprisonment, notwithstanding any procedural default, but Wright has not

argued that either his conviction is void or he is actually innocent. Wright argues

that his sentence is void, but an illegal sentence is not a recognized exception to a

procedural default. 

The dismissal of Wright’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02686-LTB

JOSHUA ALAN MEISMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FREMONT COUNTY, COLORADO,

11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

JULIE RHODEN, Deputy District Attorney,

MICHAEL PIRRAGLIA, II, Deputy District Attorney,

FREMONT COUNTY COURT, and

JUDGE NORMAN C. COOLING, County Court Judge,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Babcock, Senior Judge

Plaintiff has submitted a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff previously was allowed to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this court in this action. The court has examined

the file and has determined that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied.

Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court finds that this

appeal is not taken in good faith because plaintiff has not shown the existence of a reasoned,

nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly,

it is

ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because this

appeal is not taken in good faith.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 9th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02686-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps 
University

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) 
will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects 
of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine 
all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide 
such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high 
educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be 
focusing primarily on the growth of Marine Corps University with a view 
to the future. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 13, 2008 from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Friday, November 14, 2008 from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Marine Corps University's Gray 
Research Center. The address is: 2040 Broadway Street, Quantico, 
Virginia 22134.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lanzillotta, Executive Secretary, 
Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, 
Virginia 22134, telephone: 703-784-4037.

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
T. M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-24247 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P