alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Victor A. Pulecio, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[971 NYS2d 380]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was issued an electric truck and key to perform his duties as a parts mover in a work training program at Attica Correctional Facility. Approximately four hours later, he reported that the key was missing. When it was not recovered, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with losing state *1069property and refusing a direct order. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, respondents concede and we agree after a careful review of the record that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order *(see Matter of Hood v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2012]; *Matter of Croskery v LaValley,*93 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2012]). However, inasmuch as no loss of good time was imposed and petitioner has already served the penalty, the matter need not be remitted for a redetermination thereof *(see Ross v Prack,*95 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2012]; *Matter of Dejesus v Prack,*93 AD3d 985, 985 [2012]). We reach a different conclusion with respect to that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of losing state property. It is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report, related documentation and the testimony elicited at the hearing *(see Matter of Brown v Fischer,*98 AD3d 770, 771 [2012]; *Matter of Austin v Venettozzi,*97 AD3d 867, 867 [2012]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony that he put the key back in the lockbox before going to the mess hall for lunch presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Jamison v State of N.Y. Dept, of Corr. Servs.,*98 AD3d 1150, 1150 [2012]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have either not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P, Stein, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of refusing a direct order; petition granted to that extent and respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 18, 2015

No. 04-15-00530-CR

Abelardo Gerardo Gonzalez,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CRR000662-D1

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Abelardo Gerardo Gonzalez=s notice of appeal, which was filed August 10, 

2015, states he is appealing the denial of his motion to recuse in cause numbers 2008-CRR-657, 

2008-CRR-662, and 2008-CRR-665. The clerk’s record has been filed. Our review of the record 

raises a question regarding our jurisdiction over the appeal. 

“Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.” Ragston v. 

State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “[T]he standard for determining jurisdiction is 

not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott 

v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “This extends to interlocutory appeals 

as well, of which this Court has said: ‘The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review 

interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.’” Ragston, 424 

S.W.3d at 52 (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). 

We therefore order appellant to file, by October 12, 2015, a response showing why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond 

within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). If a 

supplemental clerk’s record is required to show this court’s jurisdiction, appellant must request 

the trial court clerk to prepare one and must file a copy of the request with this court.

All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.
_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[ARTICLE] 5
[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
[/LEGEND]
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1997
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1997
[CASH]                                          18,808
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   83,835
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               104,644
[PP&E]                                         156,850
[DEPRECIATION]                                   1,094
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 263,297
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        3,345,836
[BONDS]                                              0
[COMMON]                                        15,468
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   263,297
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  108,982
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                 5,000
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (113,982)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                   (.007)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (.005)
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         410,677
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,206
<PP&E>                                         39,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 591,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          413,659
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       411,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,506,813)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   591,325
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               77,830
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               181,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             54,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,528
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,528
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAMUEL N. AZUZ , Appellant,

v.

RAMB L EWOOD EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
, INC.

, et al.

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 1341

[ June 9, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

19

- 006877(12).

Samuel N. Azuz, Plantation, pro se.

Geralyn M. Passaro and Lynne Wilkerson of Litchfield Cavo LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Marc A. Silverman of Frank

, Weinberg & Black, P.L., Plantation, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN
, G ERBER and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Angeles Partners X (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRELL WILLIAMS-BEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0176-CG-N

)

BRIAN S. HOLLINGHEAD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant 

to the issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is 

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the 

Court's order.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00176-CG-N Document 16 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

143 

CA 16-00184 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM 

BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL 

HOMEOWNERS AND BRIGHTON EASTBROOKE HOMEOWNERS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V ORDER

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF 

ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 

OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW

(PROCEEDING NO. 1.) 

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

IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM 

BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL 

UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

 

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF 

ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 

OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW

(PROCEEDING NO. 2.) 

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

IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM 

BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL 

UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

 

TOWN OF BRIGHTON BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 

ASSESSOR OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON AND TOWN OF 

BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 

OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW

(PROCEEDING NO. 3.) 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

DAVIDSON FINK, LLP, ROCHESTER (THOMAS A. FINK OF COUNSEL), FOR
-2- 143 

CA 16-00184 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

JACOBSON LAW FIRM, P.C., PITTSFORD (ROBERT L. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an amended modified order of the Supreme Court,

Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered November 18, 2015. The

amended modified order granted in part the motion of petitioner to

modify an order and judgment entered March 27, 2015 to the extent of

designating owners entitled to refunds. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Villar v Howard, 126 AD3d 1297, 1300, affd 28 NY3d

74).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2128 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

National Archives and Records Administration, Operating Expenses for 

fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, National Archives and Records Administration, Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, NATIONAL AR5 CHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, OP6 ERATING EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Independent Agencies, National Archives and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2128 IH

1 Records Administration, Operating Expenses for fiscal 

2 year 2024 may not exceed $373,000,000. 

Æ 


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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA ROBINSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 15-0078-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin and against Plaintiff Angela 

Robinson.

DONE this 5th day of November, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00078-M Document 24 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.2.11



 Exhibit 10.2.11 

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment Number Two to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) between Gogo LLC (f/k/a Aircell LLC) (the “Company”) and John Wade (the “Executive”) is dated as of April 1, 2015. 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of October 21, 2008 (as amended by Amendment
Number One thereto dated as of December 23, 2008, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive
desire to amend the Agreement to revise certain provisions related to covenants-not-to-compete and termination benefits. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and pursuant to Section 17 of the Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Section 5(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “six (6) months” in the first sentence thereof
and replacing it with the phrase ‘one (1) year”. 
 2. Section 9(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the
phrase “six (6) months” in the first sentence thereof and replacing it with the phrase “one (1) year”. 
 3.
Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly
authorized officer and the Executive has executed this instrument as of this 14th day of April, 2015. 
  

			
	Gogo LLC:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Marguerite M. Elias

		 	Marguerite M. Elias
	
	Executive:
		
		 	 /s/ John Wade

		 	John Wade
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD687


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) 
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to consider 
actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 beginning 
at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES:
    Meeting Address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Providence, 
21 Atwells Ave., Providence, RI 02903.
    Council Address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda Items

    The New England Fishery Management Council's SSC's items for 
discussion will be: Planning for ABC recommendations needed by the 
Council in 2015; Discuss a process for dealing with ABC recommendations 
when recent assessment information is not available; Review & schedule 
the SSC meetings calendar for 2015 and discuss fishery performance 
indicators. Also on the agenda will be discussion about improvements to 
the SSC process. The committee will address other business as 
necessary.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be 
discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during 
this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically 
identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of 
this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the 
public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action 
to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30414 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2028 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2028

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
           Education, Higher Education for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
           Education, Higher Education for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
Higher Education for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1843 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

exemption for telehealth services from certain high deductible health 

plan rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mrs. LEE of Nevada, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, and 

Mr. SCHNEIDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the exemption for telehealth services from certain 

high deductible health plan rules. 

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 ‘‘Telehealth Expansion 

5 Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR TELEHEALTH SERVICES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

8 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend9 ed to read as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1843 IH

1 ‘‘(E) SAFE HARBOR FOR ABSENCE OF DE2 DUCTIBLE FOR TELEHEALTH.—A plan shall not 

3 fail to be treated as a high deductible health 

4 plan by reason of failing to have a deductible 

5 for telehealth and other remote care services.’’. 

6 (b) CERTAIN COVERAGE DISREGARDED.—Clause (ii) 

7 of section 223(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

8 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘(in the case of months or 

9 plan years to which paragraph (2)(E) applies)’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

12 of this Act. 

Æ 


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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY A. LASKEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0097-CG-B

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant 

to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation 

of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 15 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 1