alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Studying the gelation mechanism of a colloidal gel in a 

binary solvent using USANS

NIST Center for Neutron Research

USANS Experiment

Abstract

The Ultra Small-Angle Neutron scattering (USANS) instrument at the NCNR is based on a Bonse-Hart 

design and can probe the structure with the length scale from about a few hundreds of nanometers to 

about twenty micrometers. It has been used to study a wide range of materials, such as shale, paints, and 

polymers. During this neutron school experiment, USANS will be used to study the structures of a new 

type of colloidal gels in binary solvents, the solvent segregation driven gel (SeedGel). When dispersing 

colloidal particles in a binary solvent, the microscopic phase separation of a binary solvent can lead to the 

formation of a SeedGel if the surface of particles preferentially favored by one component of a binary 

solvent. In a SeedGel, the binary solvent has a phase transition into two domains with different solvent 

compositions and colloidal particles are all preferentially jammed in one solvent phase to form a particle 

domain and solvent domain. [1,2] SeedGel is thermos-reversible and scalable with very precise structure 

reproducibility during the temperature cycling. And some SeedGel systems show interesting dynamic 

coloration properties with temperature controlled color change that can be finely adjusted over the entire 

visible spectrum [3] with interesting optical applications, such as smart windows and temperature sensors.

Using the USANS instrument, we can investigate the domain size and understand how the temperature 

quenching rate determins the domain size. Various aspects of the experiment from the sample preparation 

and USANS instrument setup to data treatment and interpretation will be investigated, and references are 

given for more in-depth study. Even though the experiment focuses on the USANS instrument and their 

data analysis, we will also discuss how to analyze the SANS data of SeedGel to learn the local structural 

information of particles in the particle domain.

[1]Y. Xi, R. S. Lankone, L.P. Sung, Y. Liu, Nature Communications, 12, 910 (2021). 

[2]Y. Xi R. Murphy, Z. Zhang, A. Zemborian, S. Narayana, J. Chae, S. Choi, A. Fluerasu, L. Wiegart, Y. 

Liu, Soft Matter, 19, 233 (2023).

[3]Y. Xi, F. Zhang, Y. Ma, V. M. Prabhu, Y. Liu et al., Nature Communications, 13, 3619 (2022).
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

OSPF for IPv6

I9-Interoperability: Routing Protocol R1v1.2 

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020. 

Test Specification Id: 

• [OSPFv3-Interoperability] OSPFv3 Interoperability Test Plan, [editor: UNH InterOperability Laboratory]. 

Interoperability Partner Requirements: 

• Any host or router claiming compliance with the USGv6 profile MUST demonstrate evidence of 

interoperability with three or more independent implementations of IPv6.

• Target nodes must not change once testing has begun.

Interoperability Partners:

• DUT = TR1 for all tests. 

• TAR-Router1 = Independent Implementation Device B 

• TAR-Router2 = Independent Implementation Device C 

• TAR-Router3 = Independent Implementation Device D 

• H1, H2 and H3 = Any devices which can execute ping6 function

OSPF for IPv6 Test Check List

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.1.1 DR/BDR Election based on Router ID

(A)(B)(C) Router

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.1.2 DR/BDR Election based on Router Priority

(A)(B) Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.1.3 Hello Protocol – Hello Packet Mismatch

(A)(B)(C) Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.2.1 Area – Shortest Path Selection

(A)(B)(C)(D) Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability OSPFv3.IO.3.1 AS – Shortest Path Selection (A)(B)(C)(D) Router

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.3.2 Virtual Link Connection a Remote Area

(A)(B) Router

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.3.3 Prefer Intra-Area Routes over Inter-Area 

Routes Router

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability OSPFv3.IO.4.1 Stub Area (A)(B) Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.4.2 ASBR Type1 and Type2 External Routes

(A)(B)(C) Router 
RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.4.3 Intra-AS Paths to ASBR, Prefer Larger 

Area ID Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.4.4 Intra-AS Paths to ASBR, Prefer NonBackbone Area Router 

RFC 5340 OSPFv3-

Interoperability

OSPFv3.IO.4.5 Inter-Area Routes through Transit Areas

(A)(B)(C) Router 

References: 

• [RFC 5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 

10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008. 

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests 

applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1821 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate the Texas and New Mexico portions of the future Interstatedesignated segments of the Port-to-Plains Corridor as Interstate Route 

27, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself and Mr. CUELLAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate the Texas and New Mexico 

portions of the future Interstate-designated segments of 

the Port-to-Plains Corridor as Interstate Route 27, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘I–27 Numbering Act 

5 of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1821 IH

1 SEC. 2. NUMBERING OF DESIGNATED FUTURE INTERSTATE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the 

3 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

4 (Public Law 102–240; 109 Stat. 598; 133 Stat. 3018) is 

5 amended by inserting after the tenth sentence the fol6 lowing: ‘‘The routes referred to in clause (i) (other than 

7 subclause (V)(bb) and subclause (IX)(aa) of that clause) 

8 and clause (iv) of subsection (c)(38)(A) are designated as 

9 Interstate Route I–27. The route referred to in subsection 

10 (c)(38)(A)(i)(V)(bb) is designated as Interstate Route I– 

11 227. The route referred to in subsection 

12 (c)(38)(A)(i)(IX)(aa) is designated as Interstate Route I– 

13 327.’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

15 1105(c)(38)(A)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor16 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240; 105 

17 Stat. 2032; 114 Stat. 2763A–201; 116 Stat. 1741) is 

18 amended— 

19 (1) in subclause (V)— 

20 (A) by striking ‘‘Lamesa, the Corridor’’ 

21 and inserting the following: ‘‘Lamesa— 

22 ‘‘(aa) the Corridor’’; and 

23 (B) in item (aa) (as so redesignated), by 

24 striking ‘‘87 and, the Corridor’’ and inserting 

25 the following: ‘‘87; and 

26 ‘‘(bb) the Corridor’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1821 IH

1 (2) in subclause (IX)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘(IX) United States Route 

3 287’’ and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(IX)(aa) United States Route 

5 287’’; and 

6 (B) in item (aa) (as so redesignated), by 

7 striking ‘‘Oklahoma, and also United States 

8 Route 87’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Okla9 homa; and 

10 ‘‘(bb) United States Route 87’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMY RACHEL, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 13-0522-WS-M

 )

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

The plaintiff and defendant City of Mobile (“the City”) have filed a 

stipulation of dismissal of Count One (which is asserted only against the City). 

(Doc. 104). The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). While Rule 41(a)(1) 

can be used to dismiss all claims against less than all defendants, it cannot be used 

to dismiss less than all claims against a defendant. Klay v. United Healthgroup, 

Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss 

all of his claims against a particular defendant; its text does not permit plaintiffs to 

pick and choose, dismissing only particular claims within an action.”).1 Because 

the City would remain a defendant under Count Four, (Doc. 41 at 16-18), the 

stipulation of dismissal as to Count One is legally ineffective. Accordingly, the 

City remains a party to Count One despite the stipulation.2 

 1 Accord Bailey v. Shell Western E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710, 720 (5th Cir. 2010); 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 687-

88 (9th Cir. 2005); Gobbo Farms & Orchards v. Poole Chemical Co., 81 F.3d 122, 123 

(10th Cir. 1996); Exxon Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 599 F.2d 659, 662 (5th Cir. 

1979). The difference in treatment flows from the language of Rule 41(a)(1), which 

permits the voluntary dismissal of an “action,” not (as in Rule 41(b)) of a “claim”; 

dismissal of all claims against a defendant effectively ends the action as to that defendant 

and so is permitted by the rule. Id. at 662.

2 The proper means of dismissing fewer than all claims against a single defendant 

is by amended complaint. Klay, 376 F.3d at 1106.

Case 1:13-cv-00522-WS-M Document 106 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
The plaintiff and defendant Michael Williams have also filed a stipulation, 

pursuant to which the action against Chief Williams would be dismissed with 

prejudice. (Doc. 105). The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because the 

stipulation is not “signed by all parties who have appeared,” id., it is ineffective as 

a stipulation. However, the Court construes the stipulation as a motion to dismiss 

Chief Williams pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The defendants are ordered to file and 

serve any objection to the motion to dismiss Chief Williams on or before 

February 9, 2015. 

 

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:13-cv-00522-WS-M Document 106 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HILTON THOMAS, a/k/a Dinkles,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CR-97-355-WMN)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004

 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert Reeves

Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Hilton Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 motion for a new trial. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Hilton, No. CR-97-355-WMN (D. Md. July 30, 2003). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128259 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128259 

 COA: 260352 

Jackson CC: 03-004233-FH 

MALCOLM GARRETT, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert D. O'Donnell and Marie P. Mueller hereby jointly
certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as follows:

      (a) They are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer,
      respectively, of Community Bancorp of New Jersey (the "Company");

      (b) To the best of their knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form
      10-K, as amended for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report")
      complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (c) To the best of their knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

      Robert D. O'Donnell
      -------------------
      Robert D. O'Donnell
      President and Chief Executive Officer
      -------------------------------------
      Title
      April 28,2004
      -------------
      Date


      Marie P. Mueller
      ----------------
      Marie P. Mueller
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      ------------------------------------------
      Title
      April 28,2004
      --------------
      Date

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Community Bancorp of New Jersey
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       53
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.02


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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin
Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, 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 best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		August 15, 2005
IN THE TINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JESSICA J. NORWOOD,

CIVL ACTIONNO.

10-00110-KD-N

Defendant.

ruDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff United States'motion for judgment on

the pleadings filed July 12,2010 (Doc. 7). The court, having considered the Complaint,

the Answer and the matters presented in the Motion, finds that the Motion is well-taken

and due to be GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (c),

judgment is rendered in favor of Plaintiff United States of America, andagainst

Defendanto Jessica J. Norwood, in the amount of $37,417.04 (principal of $34,6 42.28,

interest in the amount of $2,774.76 through March 4,2010, plus intere st at 4,25Yo per

annum ($4.03 per diem) from March 4,2010, through the date ofjudgment, and interest

at the legal rate of .3 | on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1961 from the date ofjudgment

until paid in full and costs.

DONE and ORDERED this

E DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00110-KD-N Document 9 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RCSB
FINANCIAL, INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 31,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000840068
<NAME> RCSB FINANCIAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                           78661
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           10707
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      18943
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         1604141
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           1567718
<LOANS>                                        2047637
<ALLOWANCE>                                      28036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4006755
<DEPOSITS>                                     2353196
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1028164
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             252001
<LONG-TERM>                                      55949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         15386
<OTHER-SE>                                      302059
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 4006755
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 132661
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                86965
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   552
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                220178
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               75959
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              122821
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            97357
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     9324
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                1252
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  90746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  45460
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       30140
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     30140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                      19004
<LOANS-PAST>                                      4381
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 26091
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    11316
<RECOVERIES>                                      3937
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                28036
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             28036
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

   As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated February 15, 2002, included in the Annual Report of Spinnaker
Exploration Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, into
Spinnaker Exploration Company's previously filed Registration Statement No.
333-72238 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-89779 and 333-36592
and 333-61888 on Form S-8.

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March 7, 2002
#### Alexander OCASIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-15777.

D.C. No. CV-98-1747-JBR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1

Decided March 26, 2001.

*472Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Alexander Ocasio appeals pro se the summary judgment of the district court in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review summary judgment de novo. *Baker v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,*143 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.1998). Because Ocasio failed to respond to defendant’s requests for admissions, the district court properly deemed the matters admitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) and, in the absence of any disputed issues of material fact, properly granted summary judgment. *See O’Campo v. Hardisty,*262 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.1958) (affirming summary judgment based on unanswered requests for admissions).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W912BU-07-G-0001 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 61232, 61538

Donald C. Holmes, Esq.

Holmes, Pittman & Haraguchi, LLP Greensboro, MD Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney MariaT. Guerin, Esq. Amanda G. Phily, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army EngineerDistrict, Philadelphia ORDER OF DISMISSAL These appeals were docketed on June 26, 2017 and February 20, 2018. The parties have represented to the Board that the governmenthas paid appellant the settlement amount; however, appellant has not moved to dismiss the appeals. The parties were advised, by Order dated September 27, 2018, that ifthe Board did not receive a motion to dismiss the appeals within 30 days, the Board intended to dismiss them under BoardRule 18. The Board did not receive any such motion. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed withoutprejudice pursuantto Board Rule 18(b). Unless eitherparty or the Board acts to reinstate the appeals within one year from the date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: November 6, 2018

Armed Services Board ofContractAppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61232, 61538, Appeals of Colonna's Shipyard, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HUNTER TODD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0746-WS-N

ALABAMA POWER, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DONE this 1st day of March, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00746-WS-N Document 19 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1