alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w3



 



Exhibit 10.3




REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE




	$               	               ,  
     





     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, VERIDIAN CORPORATION, a corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (the “Borrower”), promises to
pay to the order of
          (the “Lender”), at the
place and times provided in the Credit Agreement referred to below, the
principal sum of
          
DOLLARS
($          ) or, if less, the
principal amount of all Revolving Credit Loans made by the Lender from time to
time pursuant to that certain Credit Agreement dated as of June 10, 2002 (as
amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified, the “Credit Agreement”)
by and among the Borrower, the Lenders, who are or may become a party thereto
(collectively, the “Lenders”) and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as
Administrative Agent. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Credit Agreement.


     The unpaid principal amount of this Revolving Credit Note from time to
time outstanding is subject to mandatory repayment from time to time and shall
bear interest, each as provided in the Credit Agreement. All payments of
principal and interest on this Revolving Credit Note shall be payable in lawful
currency of the United States of America in immediately available funds to the
account designated in the Credit Agreement.


     This Revolving Credit Note is entitled to the benefits of, and evidences
Obligations incurred under the Credit Agreement, to which reference is made for
a description of the security for this Revolving Credit Note and for a
statement of the terms and conditions on which the Borrower is permitted and
required to make prepayments and repayments of principal of the Obligations
evidenced by this Revolving Credit Note and on which such Obligations may be
declared to be immediately due and payable.


     THIS REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED, CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICTS
OR CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES THEREOF.


     The Debt evidenced by this Revolving Credit Note is senior in right of
payment to all Subordinated Debt referred to in the Credit Agreement.


     The Borrower hereby waives all requirements as to diligence, presentment,
demand of payment, protest and (except as required by the Credit Agreement)
notice of any kind with respect to this Revolving Credit Note.









 


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Revolving Credit
Note under seal as of the day and year first above written.




	 	VERIDIAN CORPORATION

	[CORPORATE SEAL]	





	 	By:                                              

     Name:
                                  

     Title:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Astronauts Test SpaceX Elevator Concept for Artemis Lunar Lander","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LPbWw6ew3p\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-astronauts-test-spacex-elevator-concept-for-artemis-lunar-lander\/\">NASA Astronauts Test SpaceX Elevator Concept for Artemis Lunar Lander<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-astronauts-test-spacex-elevator-concept-for-artemis-lunar-lander\/embed\/#?secret=LPbWw6ew3p\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronauts Test SpaceX Elevator Concept for Artemis Lunar Lander” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LPbWw6ew3p\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/hls-elevator-demo-20231122-sx-00218.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 13721 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:19

- cr - 00015

- JDW

- PRL

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

RAUL ALFARO

- MUNIZ, a.k.a. Raul Alfaro

- Munis, a.k.a. Raul Alfaro,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( June 4, 2020 ) Case: 19-13721 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 1 of 32 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Ch ief Judge, JILL PRYOR , and EDMONDSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Raul Alfaro

- Muniz appeals his above

- guidelines sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment for illegal reentry to the United States after previously being deported, excluded, or removed (4 ti mes) . He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider properly (1) the sentencing recommendations of the PSI and the government, (2) that his prior convictions for illegal reentry did not qualify for sentencing enhancements, and (3) his acceptance of responsibility. He also argues that the district court improperly considered the need for his sentence to serve as a benchmark for future convictions for illegal reentry (remarks we see as based on deter rence). Alfaro

- Muniz’s sentence is substantively reasonable because it reflects the district court’s proper exercise of discretion in weighing a number of mitigating factors against his criminal history, immigration history, and other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. For the district court to give substantial weight to Alfaro

- Muniz’s history
was app ropriate even though the history did not merit a sentencing enhancement. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that the district court’s decision relied

Case: 19-13721 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 2 of 33 up on an improper sentencing factor.
AFFIRMED. Case: 19-13721 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 Page: 3 of 3
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 Local Financial Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned 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 the
undersigneds best knowledge and belief: (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Dated this 7th day of May 2004. LOCAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(Company)/s/ Edward A. TownsendEdward A. TownsendChief Executive Officer/s/ Richard L. ParkRichard L. ParkChief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Local Financial Corporation and will be retained by Local
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD B. ORENGO.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### JEFFREY DONALDSON v. JAMES LARRY SHEARIN and FRANCES B. SHEARIN

No. 140A01

(Filed 5 October 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 142 N.C. App. 102, 541 S.E.2d 777 (2001), reversing an order entered 21 December 1999 by Evans, J., in District Court, Nash County, and remanding for entry of judgment for plaintiff. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 September 2001.

*Massengill & Brido, P.L.L.C., by Clint E. Massengill, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Dill, Fountain, Hoyle, Pridgen & Stroud, L.L.P, by William S. Hoyle, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2853 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2853

    To require a report on the methodologies utilized for National 
                        Intelligence Estimates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2004

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
            referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require a report on the methodologies utilized for National 
                        Intelligence Estimates.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL REPORT ON METHODOLOGIES 
              UTILIZED FOR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES.

    (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the National Intelligence Council shall submit 
to Congress a report that includes the following:
            (1) The methodologies utilized for the initiation, 
        drafting, publication, coordination, and dissemination of the 
        results of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs).
            (2) Such recommendations as the Council considers 
        appropriate regarding improvements of the methodologies 
        utilized for National Intelligence Estimates in order to ensure 
        the timeliness of such Estimates and ensure that such Estimates 
        address the national security and intelligence priorities and 
        objectives of the President and the Director of Central 
        Intelligence.
    (b) Form.--The report under subsection (a) shall be submitted in an 
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
                                 <all>
```
#### Leon TASBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. LYNAUGH, James S. O’Hare; W. McCall; Sergeant Boothe; Sergeant Sharp; Sergeant Steward; Officer Hearn; Officer Andrew; Officer Wilson; Lieutenant May, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-40043.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 18, 2005.

*615Leon Tasby, Amarillo, TX, pro se.

Deven Desai, Ginger R. Phillips, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leon Tasby, Texas prisoner # 362523, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged that a strip search in the presence of female prison employees violated his right to privacy. As an initial matter, Tasby’s motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief is GRANTED.

Tasby’s claims that the magistrate judge was without authority to enter the judgment of dismissal and that the judgment of dismissal was void because defense counsel was not formally admitted to practice before the district court are without merit. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c); *Carter v. Sea Land Servs., Inc.,*816 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir.1987).

Tasby has also failed to show that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. *Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,*37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.l994)(en banc). This court has held that strip searches carried out in nonsecluded areas of the prison and in the presence of prison employees of the opposite sex are not unconstitutional. *Letcher v. Turner,*968 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir.1992); *Elliott v. Lynn,*38 F.3d 188, 190-92 (5th Cir.1994); *Oliver v. Scott,*276 F.3d 736, 747 (5th Cir.2002). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

MOTION FOR LEAVE GRANTED; 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.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 4 A2 26 9 . HUERTA-RAMI REZ v . THE STATE.
Up o n co n si d erat i o n o f t h e en t i re reco rd an d ap p l i cab l e l aw, t hi s i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED as h av i n g b een i m p ro vi d en tl y g ran t ed

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## 03/23/2015 March 23, 2015
Order entered March 25 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 0013 4 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 00135 - CR RAMON MILLER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 16131 - Q, F10 - 3416 1 - Q



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s motion to establish a new timetable for the appeal. Appellant asserts that although his motion for new trial was filed on September 9, 2013 and his notice of a ppeal was filed on October 2, 2013, the notice of appeal was not forwarded to this Court until counsel was appointed on January 30, 2015. We note that appellant filed a separate motion in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00134

- CR, which was previously granted. The clerk’ s record has been filed in that appeal, as well as the reporter’s record for both appeals. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00135

- CR as follows. We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in cause no. 0 5

- 15

- 00135

- CR (trial court no. F10

- 34161

- Q) within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.We ORDER appellant to file his brief for both cases within FORTY - FIVE DAYS of the

date of this order. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, and to counsel for all parties. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Apollo 9 Crew Comes Home","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"daBnWwo5XU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/s69-27919orig\/\">Apollo 9 Crew Comes Home<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/s69-27919orig\/embed\/#?secret=daBnWwo5XU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Apollo 9 Crew Comes Home” — NASA\" data-secret=\"daBnWwo5XU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/s69-27919orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":471}
Case 2:15-cv-01798-DJH Document 2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-01798-DJH Document 2 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny Foertsch,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04468-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9278 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Alberto R. ALBERTO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 05-3090.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 15, 2005.

ORDER

Petitioner having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination it is

ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

*401Petitioner’s brief is due within 21 days from the date of filing of this order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BUDGET GROUP, INC. FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         291,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  350,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                  3,461,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,103,712
<PP&E>                                         215,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,509,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,245
<BONDS>                                      4,055,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          291,309
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           361
<OTHER-SE>                                     644,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,509,360
<SALES>                                      1,081,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,081,668
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  989,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,607)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (3,201)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,838)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES ARE REPORTED NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS ON THE
BALANCE SHEET
<F2>PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT IS REPORTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ON
THE BALANCE SHEET
</FN>


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Law Office of Patrick Mause, PLLC

Patrick W. Mause

290 North Meyer

Tucson, Arizona 85701

State Bar No. 24269

520.342.0000

520.342.0001 (Fax)

EMail: Patrick@PMauseLaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Tricia Sanchez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tricia Sanchez,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Life Insurance Company of North America, 

a foreign corporation

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cv-459-LAB

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), plaintiff Tricia Sanchez gives notice that the 

parties have resolved this matter and that she therefore requests that the Court dismiss 

this case with prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs. For the Court’s 

convenience, a proposed order is attached. 

DATED this 24th day of November, 2015.

LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK MAUSE, PLLC

By s/ Patrick W. Mause

Patrick W. Mause

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:15-cv-00459-LAB Document 8 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 1