alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSE BEZAREZ,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 277, 2014

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 0702002298

§

§

Submitted: October 9, 2014

 Decided: December 1, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices

O R D E R

This 1st day of December 2014, after careful consideration of appellant’s 

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record, we find it manifest that the 

Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed on the basis of its well-reasoned 

decision dated May 12, 2014. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 

appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief following his no contest plea was 

procedurally barred and that appellant had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Conyers, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 301]

*930Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered May 12, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Justice Dillon has been substituted for former Justice Cozier *(see*22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant stabbed the complainant after the two men became involved in an altercation. During the altercation, the defendant’s sister made two 911 emergency calls—one requesting police assistance and one requesting an ambulance. The People sought to introduce the tape recordings of the 911 calls into evidence. The defendant objected, contending, inter alia, that the admission of the tapes would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if his sister did not testify. The defendant’s sister did not testify, and the trial court admitted the tape recordings under the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Initially, we note that the defendant’s contention that the 911 calls were “testimonial” in nature under *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]) is preserved for appellate review *(see People v Hardy,*4 NY3d 192, 197 n 3 [2005]). However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the 911 calls were not “testimonial” within the meaning of *Crawford.*In further elucidating the *Crawford*standard, the United States Supreme Court recently held that statements made to law enforcement personnel during a 911 call are nontestimonial where the objective circumstances indicate that the primary purpose of the police questioning during the call was to enable assistance during an ongoing emergency, rather than to establish some past fact *(see Davis v Washington,*547 US —, —, 126 S Ct 2266, 2276-2277 [2006]). Here, the 911 calls were made to obtain police assistance and the statements did not result from questioning designed to establish or prove a past fact *(see id; see also People v Marino,*21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; *People v Coleman,*16 AD3d 254 [2005]). Therefore, the admission of the tape recordings did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation within the meaning of *Crawford*and its progeny. Krausman, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

January 31, 2013

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2011-1615, 2012-1108

INVENTIO AG, 

v.

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, 

Decided: November 27, 2012 

Nonprecedential Opinion 

______________________ 

Please make the following change:

Page 2, line 11, delete “Inventio’s asserted patent is,” and 

insert --the asserted claims of Inventio’s patent are--. 

Page 7, line 11, after “validity,” insert --of the asserted 

claims--. 

Page 7, footnote 4; page 13, lines 4-5; and page 13, line 8, 

change “’094 patent is” to --asserted claims of the ‘094 

patent are--. 

Page 11, line 29, before “the ‘094 patent,” insert --the 

invention recited in the asserted claims of--.
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 interim report of DoMark International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Thomas Kidd, 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 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 Company.

DOMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By /s/ R. Thomas Kidd
   ------------------------------------------
   R. Thomas Kidd
   Chief Executive Officer
   October 17, 2011
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 1

Michael Link, Ph.D.

Chief Methodologist

Understanding Consumers

The Nielsen Perspective...
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 2

Nielsen Consumer Data Collection

Household

Purchases

(Panel)

Ads & 

Coupons

(Causal)

Store

Visits

(Observation)

Store

Receipts

(Scanner)

Data
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 3

ScanTrack: 

Measuring Consumers Through Retail Scanning Data

DATA Client Applications Nielsen Applications

Nielsen Data Processing

Sample Projected to stores selling $2MM+

• Items scanned at Checkout

• Price, Quantity, UPC Item Description Recorded

• Scanner Tape Sent to ACNielsen or via Modem

Food Stores Drug Stores Mass Merchandisers C-Stores

Displays

Collected by store 

auditors once a week

Features

Centrally collected

& coded daily
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 4

• A panel of households 

that continually provide 

information about their 

purchases

• Homescan Panelists use 

in-home scanners to 

record all of their 

purchases (from any 

outlet) intended for 

personal in-home use

Homescan Panel: 

Measuring Consumer Purchases in Home

Objective:
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 5

How many Households are in the Homescan Panel?

• 100,000 Households in US

• Largest static sample 

• Geographically dispersed 

& demographically 

balanced

• Projectable at the national, 

regional, & market level

• Continuous reporting at 

UPC level across all outlets
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 6

What is driving Store Sales:

- How many HH's buy

- Purchase Frequency

- Purchase Size

- HH Spending

- Buyer Demographics

- Loyalty

- Coupons

- Repeat Purchasing

Panel

Scanner and Panel Data: Optimal Uses of Each

What is happening in the store:

- Sales Tracking (Volume)

- Distribution

- Price 

- Promotions (Merchandising)

- Base vs Incremental

Scanner
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 7

• How many consumers? How much is each spending?

• How much each household is spending is generated by:

• How often they spend; How much they spend each time

Buyers / Shoppers

(called penetration when expressed 

as a percentage)

Buying / Spending Rate

Purchase /

Shopping 

Frequency

Purchase /

Basket

Size

X

X

Components of Consumer Volume

Penetration

Oz per Buyer

Purchase Frequency Purchase Size
Confidential & Proprietary 

Copyright © 2011 The Nielsen Company Page 8

Thank You
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Susan D. Wigenton
v. : Crim. No. 11-51 (SDW)
WYDOVE BROWN 2 ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
motion of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Jane H. Yoon, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
appearing), for an order authorizing counsel for the defendant
Wydove Brown, namely, Scott Krasny, Esq., to inspect, accompanied
by Deputy U.S. Marshals and/or authorized court personnel, the
following areas of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building
and U.S. Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey on December 8, 2011 at
11:30 a.m.: (1) the holding area adjoining the courtroom of the
Honorable William J. Martini, United States District Judge (“the
Holding Area”); (2) the elevator located in the Holding Area
(“the Elevator”); (3) the relevant corridors in the cell block
area beginning from the Elevator to the cell where the defendant
Wydove Brown was held on June 9, 2010; and (4) the cell where the
defendant Wydove Brown was held on June 9, 2010; and this matter
having been addressed by the parties with the Court during the
November 22, 2011 telephonic status conference; and for good and
sufficient cause shown,

IT IS, on this Ot

ORDERED that Scott Krasny, Esq., counsel for the

day of December 2011,


defendant Wydove Brown, is hereby authorized on December 8, 2011,
beginning at 11:30 a.m., to inspect, accompanied by Deputy U.S.

Marshals and/or authorized court personnel, the Holding Area, the
Elevator, the relevant corridors in the cell block area from the

Elevator to the cell block where the defendant was held on June

9, 2010 and the cell block where the d ndant was held on June

9, 2010.

NTON
is—rict Judge
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LADONNA EARL and WILLIAM EARL
, her husband, Appellant s ,

v.

DOMINIC ADDARIO and YVONNE ADDARIO
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D2023

- 0578

[ January 25, 2024 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; G. J oseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case

No. 502021CA013632.

Gregory A. Kummerlen of Kummerlen Law, PLLC, Jupiter, for appellants.

Bruce M. Trybus of Cooney Tryb us Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
|   | • | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of the Partnership’s      operations. |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 8, 2010 | /s/ JOHN B. WALKER                                 |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        | John      B. Walker                                |
|                        | Chief      Executive Officer of EV Management LLC, |
|                        | general      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |
|                        | general      partner of EV Energy Partners,L.P.    |

----
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 99
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 100
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 101
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 102
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 103
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 104
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 105
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 106
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 107
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 108
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 109
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 110
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 111
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 112
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 113
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 114
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 115
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 8 Filed 09/03/10 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 116
Case 2:10-cv-03734-KSH Document 2 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 11-55 (FSH)

v. : Hon. Faith S. Hochberg 

TAHRICE BOYD : UNSEALING ORDER

 

This matter having come before the Court on the application

of the United States of America (Adam N. Subervi, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, appearing) for an order that the Indictment returned in

the above-captioned matter be unsealed, given that the Defendant

is in State custody and a federal detainer has now been lodged

against him; and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON this 15 day of March, 2011, th

ORDERED that the Indictment filed in the above-captioned

matter is unsealed.

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

HON. FAITH S. HOCHBERG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00055-CCC Document 4 Filed 03/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 7
Exhibit 13.2





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 Annual Report of RADVISION Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adi Sfadia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.




/s/ Adi Sfadia               *


Adi Sfadia


Chief Financial Officer





April 25, 2010




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 155
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 156
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 157
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 DoMar Exotic Furnishings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007 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, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.

Date: October 12, 2007


/s/ Scott Sieck
----------------------------------------
Scott Sieck, Principal Financial Officer
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 Waterpure International, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      F. Orr, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:





1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 as of the dates and for the


periods
      expressed in the Report..





Date:
      May
      14, 2007     */s/
      Robert F. Orr*


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


Robert
      F.
      Orr


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
EX-10.40



 Exhibit 10.40 
 Corrections Corporation of America (the “Company”) 
 Summary of
Director and Executive Officer Compensation 
 I. Director Compensation. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive
additional compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors. 

Retainers and Fees 

					
		
	 Board retainer
	  	$	53,500	  
	 Board meeting fee
	  	$	3,250	  
	 Audit chair retainer
	  	$	11,000	  
	 Audit member retainer
	  	$	2,200	  
	 Compensation, Nominating and Governance chair retainer
	  	$	5,350	  
	 Committee chair meeting fee (excluding Executive)
	  	$	2,700	  
	 Non-chair committee meeting fee
	  	$	2,200	  

 In addition to the cash compensation set forth above, each non-employee director has historically
received a grant of a non-qualified option for the purchase of shares of the Company’s common stock and shares of restricted stock of the Company following the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders. 

II. Executive Officer Compensation. The following table sets forth the current base salaries and the fiscal 2012 performance bonuses provided to
the individuals who are anticipated to constitute the named executive officers of the Company for 2013. 
  

									
	 Executive Officer
	  	Current Salary	 	  	Fiscal 2012
Bonus 
Amount	 
			
	 Damon T. Hininger
	  	$	693,000	  	  	$	189,942	  
	 Todd J Mullenger
	  	$	332,800	  	  	$	91,678	  
	 Harley G. Lappin III
	  	$	312,000	  	  	$	85,948	  
	 Anthony L. Grande
	  	$	312,000	  	  	$	85,948	  
	 Brian D. Collins
	  	$	278,100	  	  	$	77,003	  

 The named executive officers will also participate in the Company’s 2013 Cash Bonus Plan and will
continue to receive long-term incentive awards pursuant to the Company’s stockholder approved equity incentive plans. 
 III. Additional
Information. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information regarding director and named executive officer compensation will be provided in the Company’s proxy statement to be filed in connection with the 2013 annual
meeting of stockholders.
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

I, Stephen R. Brunner, Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President of Constellation Energy Partners LLC, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Constellation Energy Partners LLC.



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen R. Brunner                                        
|Stephen R. Brunner                                            
|Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President

Date: November 6, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1 / 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 Coronado Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Floricel Leiton, Chief Executive and Financial 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 results of
operations of the Company.  A signed original 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.   /s/ Floricel LeitonName:
Floricel LeitonTitle:
Chief Executive and Financial OfficerDate:
August 18, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1772

MARK A. WARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAVY BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; LIN

TELEVISION CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-461-2)

Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, WILLCOX &

SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order holding

him in civil contempt of its September 30, 2002 pre-filing

injunction order. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Ward v. WAVY Broad., Inc., No. CA-99-461-2

(E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2003 & entered June 18, 2003). We deny

Ward’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 284
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 285
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 286
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 287
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 288
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 289
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 290
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 291
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 292
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 293
Case 2:11-cv-01494-DMC-JAD Document 38 Filed 08/31/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 294