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

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruthell Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03403-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8562 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8562 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
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

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

KENT LAW OFFICES

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Nitzkin & Associates

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Christopher Hutchison

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Hutchison,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an

Ohio corporation; Educational Credit

Management Corp., a foreign corporation

and Midland Funding, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-15-02351-PHX-SPL

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AS TO 

DEFENDANT EDUCATIONAL 

CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP., 

ONLY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant, Educational Credit

Management Corp., in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement. The 

parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant 

Case 2:15-cv-02351-SPL Document 55 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Educational Credit Management Corp., ONLY, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) 

within 60 days.

DATED: November 16, 2016 KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Christopher Hutchison

Case 2:15-cv-02351-SPL Document 55 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community First  Bancorporation,  hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-QSB of the issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.


November 7, 2003



                              s/ Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                 Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                                 Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                 Financial Officer
#### Ed Smedley et ux *v.*J. W. Sauner.

Judgment — Default—Incomplete Petition.

A judgment by default on a petition to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, is premature, unless the records of the suit and the conveyance be in the pleadings.

APPEAL FROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 29, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Appellant filed his petition against appellees to set aside a conveyance to the wife of Walker of sub-division 4 and 5 of lot 145 in' Columbus as fraudulent. lie having obtained a judgment, execution and return of no property found in the Hickman circuit -court, also another before some justice of the peace, both of which records are referred to, also the. deed from Walker to Mrs. Smedley is made part of the petition.

It is alleged that these debts existed before the conveyance which was fraudulently procured by the husband, he having paid for the lots, then being embarrassed. Process was served on both the defendants in June, 1860. In October, 1861, a judgment was rendered on confession, no response being made, setting aside said conveyance so far as necessary to pay these debts and subjecting the property thereto, from which Smedley and wife have appealed and urge several objections. The most substantial error is as to taking the petition for confessed, whilst it was yet incomplete. For having made these records part thereof the defendants were not bound to answer until said exhibits were in.

The conveyance from Walker was essential in order to assure the purchaser where the legal title was, as has often been held by this court; bsides, the court should not set aside a solemn instrument without having the same before it. The order of confession was erroneous, and the judgment premature, which is not a mere *331clerical misprision, but a reversable error. Wherefore, the judgment- is reversed for further proceedings.

Lindsey, *for appellant.*

*Bradley,*Rodman, *for appellee.*
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 5 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 6 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 7 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 8 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 9 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 10 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 11 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 12 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 13 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 14 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 15 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 16 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 17 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 18 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 19 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 20 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 21 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 22 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 23 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 24 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 25 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 26 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 27 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 28 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 29 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 30 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-02290-SRB Document 1-1 Filed 11/12/15 Page 32 of 32
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 Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007 (the Report), I, Thad M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    THAD M.
BROWNThad M. Brown Chief Financial Officer May 9, 2007
<PAGE>

                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-90660) pertaining to the 1994 Basic Stock Option and Stock
Appreciation Rights Plan and the 1994 Special Stock Option and Stock
Appreciation Rights Plan of Cinergi Pictures Entertainment Inc. of our report
dated April 11, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Cinergi Pictures Entertainment Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 11, 1997
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charles Edward Byrd, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02263-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 15) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the 

parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 4 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner 

filed objections on April 15, 2016 (Doc. 16). 

Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Stay or Motion to Dismiss Petition Without 

Prejudice so Petitioner Can Exhaust Claim in State Court. (Doc. 17.) For the reasons 

stated in the R&R, any state court petition would by barred at this time. Therefore, this 

Motion will be denied as futile. 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Case 2:15-cv-02263-NVW Document 18 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc.15) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay or Motion to 

Dismiss Petition Without Prejudice so Petitioner Can Exhaust Claim in State Court (Doc. 

17) is denied. 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability 

and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the 

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 

ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 18th day of April, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02263-NVW Document 18 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 2
#### G. M. Mullins *v.*W. L. Roberts.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1870.

*Benton, for appellant.*

*Carlisle & O'Hara, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

This court has heretofore decided in *Griswold v. Hepburn 2 Duvall 20*that a contract to pay money could not be discharged by the payment of United States legal tender notes and that adjudicated has been approved by the *Supreme Court of the United States.*

The judgment in this case is in accordance with these adjudications, and must therefore be *affirmed.*
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

Nicholas R. Nowicki

AZ Lic. # 029740

McDonough & Nowicki PLLC

555 7th St. West

St. Paul, MN 55102

Telephone: 612-217-0257

Email: nik@mcnowick.com

Of Counsel to:

Nitzkin & Associates

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Fred Crandell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fred Crandell,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

an Ohio corporation; Trans Union, LLC a 

Delaware limited liability company; 

Equifax Information Services, LLC, a 

Georgia corporation; Chase Bank USA, 

N.A., a National Association; Discover 

Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation; and Synchrony Bank, an Ohio 

corporation.

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-15-02354-PHX-GMS

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS 

TO EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES, LLC

Case 2:15-cv-02354-DLR Document 41 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Plaintiff, through counsel undersigned, hereby dismisses the within action 

against Equifax Information Services, LLC, with prejudice and without costs to either 

party. 

MCDONOUGH & NOWICKI, PLLC

DATED: January 27, 2016

By: /s/ Nicholas R. Nowicki 

Nicholas R. Nowicki 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Fred Crandell

Case 2:15-cv-02354-DLR Document 41 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of NOVA Chemicals Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report), I, Randy Woelfel, Chief Executive Officer of NOVA Chemicals Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NOVA Chemicals Corporation.   March   12, 2012

/s/   Randy WoelfelRandy   WoelfelChief   Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 NexPrise, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

August 04, 2003                            By: /s/ Ted Drysdale
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ted Drysdale
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

August 04, 2003                            By: /s/ Jerome E. Natoli
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Jerome E. Natoli
                                           Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
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

2:15-cv-02074-SRB

David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN: 026059)

david@southwestlitigation.com

Hyde& Swigart

2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (602) 265-3332

Facsimile: (602) 230-4482

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Giuseppe Cirincione,

Plaintiff,

v.

Midland Funding LLC,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:15-cv-2074-SRB

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a), Plaintiff Giuseppe Cirincione,

hereby dismisses this case WITHOUT prejudice as to all parties.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2015. 

HYDE & SWIGART

/s/David J. McGlothlin

David J. McGlothlin

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02074-SRB Document 6 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debbie A. Hall,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04410-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/23/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9992 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9992 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 91 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 91 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 91 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 91 Filed 03/05/20 Page 4 of 4