alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q, for the three
month period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, Chief Executive 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; and

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



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/    Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Bernard J. Tanenbaum III       
|Chief Executive Officer        

November 13, 2008
# Tips for users

# NAICS 2012 changes

# Diagram of recombinations
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On April 27, 2009, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. A permit was issued on June 30, 2009 to: Ross Virginia; Permit No. 2010-001.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-15988 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Case 2:10-cv-06463-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 32
Case 2:10-cv-06463-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 33
Case 2:10-cv-06463-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 34
Case 2:10-cv-06463-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 35
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed Au gust 12 , 2021
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 21
- 00326
- CV
IN THE ESTATE OF DAVE WALKER, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. P20
- 084

MEMORANDU M OPINION This is an appeal from a n order signed June 1, 2021

. The notice of appeal was filed June 11, 2021

. To date, our records show that appellant has no t paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civi l cases

u nless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs )

. Tex. Gov’t Code § 51.207 (appellate fees and costs).
On July 13 , 20 2 1 , this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate fi ling fee on or bef ore July 23 , 20 2 1 , or the appe al would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order

.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comp ly with n otice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time)

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise , Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JOHN JAMES ROBBINS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

THE HON. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

OF BRADFORD COUNTY: AND 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BRADFORD 

COUNTY, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 139 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Nakia C., Appellant, v Johnny F.R., Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 129]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2013, insofar as it denied petitioner’s request that the order of protection remain in effect for five years and that respondent be required to participate in individual counseling and a batterer’s program, unanimously modified, on the law, the matter remanded for reconsideration *539of the duration of the order of protection in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding that respondent committed the family offense of reckless endangerment in the second degree is undisputed and in any event supported by the record. After threatening violence against petitioner over the telephone, respondent showed up near her home and, when she drove away with her boyfriend and one of the parties’ children, engaged in a high-speed car chase in which he recklessly cut off her car, thereby “creating] a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person” (Penal Law § 120.20).

The court erred in concluding that there were no aggravating circumstances that would permit it to impose *longer*than a two-year duration in the order of protection, based on its finding that respondent did not use his car as a dangerous instrument because he did not intend to make or threaten dangerous contact using the car *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 842, 827 [a] [vii]). A dangerous instrument is “any instrument, article or substance, including a ‘vehicle’ as that term is defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). There is no requirement that the person using the instrument intend to cause serious physical injury.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6425

DANIEL L. ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL; TIMOTHY J. MCKOY; KEVIN A. BARNES; LARRY M. 

DUNSTON; SHELTON E. ROGERS; JUANITA R. JAMES; MARANDA C. 

MIMS; COLBERT L. RESPASS,

Defendants - Appellees, 

and

FRANK L. PERRY; ROBERT D. FOUNTAIN; TERRY J. LEMON; JERRY L. 

CRAWFORD; CHRISTOPHER B. RICH; GEORGE T. SOLOMON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03113-FL)

Submitted: March 22, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Daniel L. Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Daniel L. Allen appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment and dismissing Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 

complaint. The court’s order granting summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground 

appearing in the record, “including theories not relied upon or rejected by the district 

court.” Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 137 (4th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Allen’s 

claims are barred by North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. See Wallace v. 

Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (noting length of statute of limitations in § 1983 action 

determined by state law); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 

1996) (applying North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 action). 

Allen’s claims accrued at the latest on May 20, 2010, the date of his second disciplinary 

hearing. Allen filed his complaint at the earliest on May 7, 2016, the date Allen signed his 

original complaint, clearly three years beyond the accrual date for statute of limitation 

purposes. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and judgment. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# table53_q6_state
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form S-8, in RegistrationStatement Nos. 33-44700, 333-44024 and 333-46218 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 23, 2004, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Archon Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2004. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

December 28, 2004
Applying Event History Methods in a National Panel:

The Design and Use of Event History Calendars

in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

April Beaule and Frank Stafford

Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center 

University of Michigan

www.psidonline.org
Research Questions

• Can we increase data quality with EHC‟s?

• What EHC applications have there been in 

PSID? Motivated partly by biennial „97 on.

• Pre 2003 Methods Work – GUI „conversation‟

• Much Summarized in Belli Stafford and Alwin, 

Calendar and Time Diary Methods, Sage, 2009

• Recent PSID designs

• Data Quality Checks Early Childhood and 

Employment EHC‟s
Vintage 2003-2007

RESIDENTIAL TIMELINE

PSID EHC (03-07)
PSID 2003 EHC instrument
From 2005/03(04/02) 

ONE YEAR BACK

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

jan_2 feb_1 feb_3 mar_2 apr_1 apr_3 may_2 june_1 june_3 jul_2 aug_1 aug_3 sep_2 oct_1 oct_3 nov_2 dec_1 dec_3

Third of month Proportion

Men 2002 Men 2004 Women 2002 Women 2004
FROM NEW 2009 EHC ALIGNMENT OF UNEPLOYMENT SPELLS 

AND RECEIPT OF UI FORM THE INCOME SECTION

Difference Between 1st Month Received Unemp. Comp. and 1st Month Unemployed 

Where 1st Month Unemp. January - June 2008

By Proxy Status

(N=151)

1 1

2 3

9

4

1

3

1

1

1

4

5 4

2 0

4

2

2 2 1

7

2

4

1

3

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

-5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Months Difference Count

Self

Proxy
2007 CHILD HEALTH HISTORY CALENDAR FOR 

ADULTS compared with PCG REPORTS 1997 - ASTHMA

In both CDS I and

2007 Core (247)

PCG Reports No Asthma 

(218)

PCG Reports Asthma

(29)

Calendar No or DK (199, 2) Core Yes (17) Core 2007 Yes

(18)

Core 2007 

No (11)

Age Compatible (10)

Contradict (7)
2007 and 2009 CHILD HEALTH HISTORY CALENDAR
HEALTH HISTORY SCREENING QUESTION
NEW 2009 EMPLOYMENT EHC
CHECKING FOR GAPS
DATA INTEGRITY CROSS-CHECK TIMELINES
INCORRECT REPORTING OF TIME AWAY –

“VACATION SPELL”
FUZZY (?) DATES OR DEFINITE (#) DATES?
BOILING IT DOWN TO SUMMARY DATA 

May June July TOTWSKJob

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Job 1 4*1.45=5.8

Job 2 5*1.45=7.25

Job 3 3*1.45=4.35

WTR

Overlap

Num

Concur

Num

Unique

Num

Thirds

Num

Weeks

Rounded

1 3 (Blue) 4 (Pink) 7 7*1.45=10.15 10

Summary Indicators
TO SUMMARIZE,...

• USED EHC‟s OVER 2 YEAR RETRO 

(LABOR MARKET)

• FROM EARLY LIFE COURSE 

(CHILDHOOD HEALTH CALENDAR)

• IMPROVING DATA QUALITY AT THE 

INTERVIEW (GRAPHICS, FLEXIBILTY)

• DESIGN FOR EX POST PROCESSING

• LEARNING EXPERIENCE THRU TIME

• PRE-LOAD END DATES FOR LABOR 

MARKET? 
THANKS FOR YOUR 

ATTENTION!
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark McWethy, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[612 NYS2d 987]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.— Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
NONCONFIDENTIAL // EXTERNAL

BLS Data Users Advisory Committee 

April 27, 2023 

12:00 pm Acting Commissioner’s Welcome and Remarks 

 12:30 pm Current Population Survey (CPS) Work Schedules 

Presenter: Karen Kosanovich 

 Discussant: Michael Farren 

 

1:30 pm Break 

1:45 pm Wage Record Pilots 

 Presenter: Jay Mousa 

 Discussant: Randall Eberts 

2:45 pm Peeling back the layers: Understanding BLS price indexes below the headline numbers 

Presenter: Steve Reed 

 Discussant: Michael Madowitz

 

3:45 pm Discussion of Future Topics and Concluding Remarks 

4:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Time.
909 A.2d 723

#### LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY AND JOHN T. PAFF, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. REINA A. MURPHY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

October 20, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited to the order on counsel fees, and the matter is summarily remand*488ed to the Appellate Division for a statement of reasons in respect of its disposition of that matter.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### ALBERTI v. AUTOMOBILE SHIPPERS, Inc.

Civ. No. 25885.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

July 27, 1949.

*324M. W. Kosach, Youngstown, Ohio, G. F. • Hammond, Youngstown, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Davis & Young, Rees H. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a complaint for negligence wherein plaintiff allegedly suffered personal injuries as a result of a traffic accident.

Plaintiff neglected to demand a trial by jury within the time limit provided by Rule 38(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and now moves that the Court order a trial by jury under the provisions of Rule 39(b). A stipulation has been filed whereby defendant waives any objections to the trial of the case by a jury.

Although counsel offer no explanation for their failure to demand a jury trial within the time provided by Rule 38, the facts that the defendant does not object and that this is a personal injury case and therefore “peculiarly one to be decided by a jury”, S. S. Kresge Co. v. Holland, 6 Cir., 158 F.2d 495, 497, the motion will be granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         345,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,612,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                   305,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,599,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,604,201
<PP&E>                                      41,905,021
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,837,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,581,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,918,827
<BONDS>                                     27,235,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,631,572
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,213,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,581,238
<SALES>                                     66,128,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            66,128,723
<CGS>                                       54,186,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,186,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,240,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               123,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,516,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,871,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,721,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,159,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,159,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)
        



</TABLE>
#### HINDLEMAN v. SPECIALTY SALESMAN MAGAZINE, Inc.

No. 738.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

May 1, 1940.

Heth, Lister & Flynn, of Chicago, Ill., and Hellerstein & Gertz, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.

Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

WOODWARD, District Judge.

. This matter comes up on a motion for a summary judgment. The defendant heretofore filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which motion was overruled. Thereupon the defendant served its answer. On motion of plaintiff certain portions of the answer were stricken. See memorandum of court filed January 26, 1940, 1 F. R. D. 278. Thereupon the defendant filed an amended answer divided into several parts. The first part admits certain allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and denies other allegations.

The plaintiff has filed a motion for a summary judgment based upon the pleadings.

Obviously, the motion for a summary judgment must be denied. On the admitted facts of the pleadings judgment could not go in favor of the plaintiff. In the first part of its amended answer, the defendant has denied and put in issue material matters which must be proved before the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

In the alternative plaintiff moves to strike defendant’s amended answer.

This motion will be granted in part. As the Court had occasion to say in its former memorandum, the answer of the defendant was a gross violation of Rules 8(b) and 8(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The amended answer commencing on page 4 and concluding on page 25, Paragraphs 13 to 55, both inclusive, likewise offends the rule.

Rule 8(b) reads: “A party shall state in short and plain terms his defenses to each claim asserted.”

Rule 8(e) (1) provides: “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.”

This pleading, in the paragraphs last referred to, is highly verbose and argumentative.

An order will be entered striking Paragraphs 13 to 55, both inclusive, of the amended answer.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

June 21, 2013 

LETTER ORDER 

Re: J.M., et al. v. Township of Irvington, et al.

 Civil Action No. 11-cv-00278 (ES) 

Dear Counsel: 

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs J.M., a minor, by her guardian, and T.M.’s 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Second Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Glenn Harp 

(“Harp”) and Network Youth Development Program (collectively, “the defaulting Defendants”). 

(D.E. No. 51). The Court DENIES this motion. 

Briefly, this case arises from the sexual assault of Plaintiff J.M. by Harp. The other 

Defendants in this case are organizations and government entities that formerly employed Harp 

and are allegedly liable to Plaintiffs for failing to adequately supervise Harp. Harp and 

Defendant Network Youth Development Program failed to answer the complaint. All other 

Defendants answered, and this matter is ongoing. 

“[I]f default is entered against some defendants in a multi-defendant case, the preferred 

practice is for the court to withhold granting default judgment until the action is resolved on its 

merits against non-defaulting defendants: if plaintiff loses on merits, the complaint should then 

be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants.” Animal Sci. Products, Inc. 

v. China Nat. Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 842, 849 (D.N.J. 2008); 

See Generally Shanghai Automation Instrument Co., Ltd. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1005-11 

(N.D. Cal. 2001) (discussing multi-party defendant default judgment jurisprudence in different 

federal courts); Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Gulf Coast Software, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 580, 582-83 

(E.D. Va. 2000) (same); Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 797 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1986). 

Here, the analysis of the claims against the non-defaulting Defendants requires the Court 

to preliminarily rule on Harp’s liability. Thus, the claims of the defaulting and non-defaulting 

Defendants are intertwined and it would be inappropriate to grant default judgment against the 

defaulting Defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

CHAMBERS OF 

ESTHER SALAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

MARTIN LUTHER KING 

COURTHOUSE 

50 WALNUT ST. 

ROOM 5076 

NEWARK, NJ 07101 

973-297-4887 

Case 2:11-cv-00278-ES-JAD Document 71 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 459
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OFLOUISIANA NO. 

### 2023 KW0456 VERSUS WILLIE THORNTON 

### AUGUST 14, 

### 2023

In Re: Willie Thornton, 

### applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 11-15-0180. BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, ANDMILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court 

### is ordered to act on relator' s application 

### for postconviction relief, 

### filed 

## July 28, 2022, on or 

### before September 

### 11, 2023, 

### if it has not 

### already 

### done so. A 

### copy of 

### the trial court' s action shall 

### be filed 

### in this court on orbefore September 18, 2023. PMC CHH 

### SMM
Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 1 of 22 PageID: 1

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 2 of 22 PageID: 2

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 3 of 22 PageID: 3

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 4 of 22 PageID: 4

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 5 of 22 PageID: 5

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 6 of 22 PageID: 6

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 7 of 22 PageID: 7

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 8 of 22 PageID: 8

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 9 of 22 PageID: 9

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 10 of 22 PageID: 10

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 11 of 22 PageID: 11

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 12 of 22 PageID: 12

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 13 of 22 PageID: 13

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 14 of 22 PageID: 14

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 15 of 22 PageID: 15

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 16 of 22 PageID: 16

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 17 of 22 PageID: 17

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 18 of 22 PageID: 18

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 19 of 22 PageID: 19

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 20 of 22 PageID: 20

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 21 of 22 PageID: 21

Case 2:11-cv-00831-JLL -CCC   Document 1    Filed 02/08/11   Page 22 of 22 PageID: 22