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 theQuarterly Report of June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of theundersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Dated:  August 14, 2009                                                   By:  /s/ Michael McChesney

                                               

                                                                               MICHAEL MCCHESNEY

                                                                               Chief Executive Officer
#### D. W. Kent v. The National Bank of Commerce and L. C. Welton.

No. 465.

Practice, Courts or *Appeals*— Necessary *Parties*— Revivor. The cases of *Larkin, v. Lane,'í*Kan. App. 774, 46 Pac. 997, *Janis v. Bank,*59 Kan.' 771, 51 Pac. 886, and *Bank v. Van Doran,*59 id. 776, 53 Pac. 130, followed.

Error from Reno district court’; F-. L. Martin, judge.

Opinion filed March 20, 1899.

Dismissed.

*641
      *G. M.*Williams, for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. G. Fairchild,*for defendants in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Milton, J.:

Plaintiff in error brought this action against the defendants in error before a justice of the peace in Reno county to recover the sum of $275, which he claimed as agent's commission for selling certain real estate in the city of Hutchinson. The defendants appealed from the judgment rendered against them by the justice of the peace, and at the trial in the district court their demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence was sustained. A joint judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants for costs. In the petition in error this judgment is complained of and a reversal thereof is asked. After the proceedings in error were commenced L. C. Welton died, and no steps to revive or substitute had been taken within the time allowed by law. The National Bank of Commerce, one of the defendants in error, moved to dismiss the petition in error for the reason that its codefendant, L. C. Welton, died on June 15, 1896, and an administrator of his estate was duly appointed on July 1 thereafter, and no steps had been taken to revive the action.

The bill of particulars, the journal entry of judgment and the petition in error all indicate that L. C. Welton was a necessary party to the proceeding in error. In the case of *Larkin v. Lane,*4 Kan. App. 774, 46 Pac. 997, in which Jesse C. Crall, a party to the proceedings in error, died during the pendency of such proceedings, the court said :

> “Jesse C. Crall was a necessary party to the proceedings in error. His death, without an order of revivor having been applied for or made in this court, *642leaves the case in the same condition it would be in had he, in the first place, not been made a party thereto.”

In the case of *Janis v. Bank,*59 Kan. 771, 51 Pac. 886, decided by the supreme court of this state, one paragraph of the syllabus reads: “Where necessary parties in error have died, and no proceedings to revive or substitute are had within the time allowed by law, the petition in error should be dismissed.” See also *Bank v. Van Doran,*59 Kan. 776, 53 Pac. 130. The petition in error will be dismissed.
911 A.2d 65

#### JOHN DAIDONE AND LAURA DAIDONE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. BUTERICK BULKHEADING INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

November 15, 2006.

Granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          357749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   230011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                591773
<PP&E>                                        19039521
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4496365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                24276313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           389289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    19731451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  24276313
<SALES>                                          20799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2787250
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   119479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                125422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              154262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1869732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1869732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    31.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    31.54
        

</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1114 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate a provision 

under the Medicare Advantage program that inadvertently penalizes 

Medicare Advantage plans for providing high quality care to Medicare 

beneficiaries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

a provision under the Medicare Advantage program that 

inadvertently penalizes Medicare Advantage plans for 

providing high quality care to Medicare beneficiaries. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Advantage 

5 Quality Payment Relief Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1114 IS

1 SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM QUALITY BONUS PENALTY IN CAL2 CULATION OF THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 

3 BLENDED BENCHMARK CAP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1853(n)(4) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(n)(4)) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘determined taking into account’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘determined without regard to’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning on or 

10 after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20347

Summary Calendar

COPELAND COLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-99-CV-2185)

September 27, 2000

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Copeland Cole appeals an adverse summary judgment in his ERISA dispute

with Continental Casualty Company. Our review of the record, briefs of the

parties, and controlling jurisprudence reveals no reversible error herein. And on

the facts as found, authorities cited, and analyses made by the district court in its
2

careful and comprehensive Memorandum and Order dated March 9, 2000 and

entered March 13, 2000, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
**ORDER**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20

- 0584 CITY OF BILLINGS ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. DANIEL WAYNE BRUSARD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

of time to and including February 11 , 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2022

01/05/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0584
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 131 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine 
Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the 
Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory 
committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military 
Personnel Testing will take place:

DATES: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and Thursday, 
August 27, 2009 (8:30 a.m. to Noon).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Mulberry Inn, 601 East Bay 
Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane Arabian, Assistant Director, 
Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel 
and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, 
telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review 
planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-
pencil enlistment tests.
    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test 
development timelines and planned research for the next three years.
    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b 
and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, 
this meeting is open to the public.
    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Dr. 
Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.
    Oral Presentations: Persons desiring to make oral presentations or 
submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting 
must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number 
above no later than August 15, 2009.

Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-16322 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
909 A.2d 284

#### IN THE MATTER OF HERBERT F. LAWRENCE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 1, 2006.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that HERBERT F. LAWRENCE of NEPTUNE CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months effective December 1, 2005 by Order of this Court filed November 3, 2005, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
---

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 

I, Drew Bonnell, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Coronado Corp. for
      the period ended September 30, 2010 (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 Coronado Corp.                                                                     

Dated: November 15, 2010

| | /s/
      Drew Bonnell                                     
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Drew Bonnell                                               
| | Secretary, Treasurer and CFO                               
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer)                                                   
| | Coronado Corp.                                             

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

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

t0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142421 & (59) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142421 

 COA: 292613 

Wayne CC: 08-016447-FC 

JAMEL DONTE DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2010 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

stay proceedings and to remand is DENIED.
2012 10K EX 10.16(ii)


EXHIBIT 10.16(ii)


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of December 21, 2011, by and between DUKE REALTY CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation (the “Company”) and CHRISTIE B. KELLY (“Executive Officer”).  


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive Officer entered into that certain Executive Severance Agreement, dated May 7, 2009 (the “ESA”), with respect to separation benefits in the event of the Executive Officer’s separation from the Company; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive Officer now desire to amend the ESA in the manner set forth herein and pursuant to the terms of this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, taking into account the foregoing Recitals, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive Officer agree to amend the ESA as follows:


1.Amendment to ESA.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the ESA, in the event the Executive Officer’s employment terminates effective on or after her 62nd birthday, she will not be entitled to receive any separation benefits from the Company under Paragraphs A, B, or C of the ESA.


2.Full Force and Effect.  Except as set forth herein, all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of the ESA shall remain in full force and effect.  If a conflict or inconsistency exists between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the terms and provisions of the ESA, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control to the extent of any such conflict or inconsistency.


3.Governing Law.  The terms of, and any dispute arising under, this Amendment will be governed by the laws of Indiana.  You agree that any litigation arising out of or under this letter will be commenced and maintained only in the state or federal courts within the state of Indiana.


4.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in multiple original counterparts.  Each counterpart shall be deemed to be an original for all purposes, and all counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.


5.Further Instruments.  Each party will, whenever and as often as it shall be reasonably requested so to do by another party, cause to be executed, acknowledged or delivered, any and all such further instruments and documents as may be necessary or proper, in the reasonable opinion of the requesting party, in order to carry out the intent and purpose of this Amendment.


[Signature Page Follows]















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written.




“Company”


DUKE REALTY CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation


	
	
	/s/    Dennis D. Oklak

	Name: Dennis D. Oklak

	Title: Chief Executive Officer






“Executive Officer”


/s/    Christie B. Kelly
Christie B. Kelly
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132587 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: 132587 COA: 272609 Calhoun CC: 2005-003503-FH JEFFREY SCOTT HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

t0328 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 4, 2007

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION
v.
ISHMAEL ARMAH : NO. 11-159-2
ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2011, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion of defendant Ishmael Armah for
reconsideration of his sentence is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Harvey Bartle IIT
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

:ou/itqf cmms/Vat^/mMlMiLMMS^ SEP 03 2015

#*&£•/ r*/3/ur*> AbelAcosta,i

i/ &ft<FFyt/e -02yt£j>0zys-•£/?

/n&rrc a/ fl:w JFxrfAfSsd/* or rr/?<nr yc jFs/jt

""'" ' ' ' —' -f — T ft ii i i " f mi iiitTIB' '

to rtff /-Jo/V£/?m/f 7vj?&£5 cf ?/?/# cou/rr::

XAS/20*tf<f 5r//e0 tfA/0 A/v/>i&<£:/ie0 c/jusre cu/Scw/?/??

P/?L>c*re/?/'A/G 2~as/*/?(>-$<?/v'&y /ft/0 5<->i?s>*>7j~ rrty /y/mh*/

f~6/t fX/CA/S'-CA/ of 77r/»£ To /*/7F/">3/7(r /tyT/Ti C"Pd

0.'fc/?€r};c/&9/?y'//emeus' /?#/? ?ti/sufrmr t*£pennz+i&z

r///?r rt//£/$/? cevAsftt ?v&/?s/7re& tfsifes/s/Mr &/?s& cm/?&#/?&= e?~

f&£ /IP/'e/trfA/r/?*«# TtfC- <5&c?-r /J,& /*/£>- iS-r/ftsr/?&'£'>* S&i.t&tf-r,

/?f/t!:&/ Coujuftf/ L«-rSrti/?/Z-i^ /?5 /£<£•/?/ Co^M^e/ e^rr/fear

/~*///>/£ f^/f /Tftft'/?/?/*<•£• /?U<0 Cu/yH OCT i.s/*/?A/'*/Z~ /*r/f*/<*/&

rrtf/P/VKry^Arr c*sST*fC£sr/£*&,+/ £&<*/*• 5JF/t

Pfr/T/'&A/e/? Ztf/?/?/" /J^/^^rf-'c// /7ffi.-^>r of s~/JC zca/rr

77/£ ft?r/r?'*«/&/? //??/? rtf? /fz**/ >v/> ?/? r& &'A? perm**/

tfMti.J?5 yte/7/A/^ /S&S f/*J0 A/C^S ft/frf/££*&/$/*

7/^te ris/p'W 5&rt'<rc'*/f u,sT/t rfte /£d&/ jn,//?

A/C?e/7 7% f,/£ /££'*/ /faStSt c<SOf?fl
A/C~$2-e;>4<-oo'5i{5 -£/-?

t<b>mfli?Att72?' rtft'' pertr* £*/£/? ?/?/?</? r/t/?r r^et-te*te/?swtf

Coa fir af cfit/rhA//?//$P/Z*?i-/j caj/j/ &/7/?uT r//ff•**&&**/

F&fl £KT£A/f,-eA/ or T//r/c fv T'/F pfT/Ttc/</ AWJ'DiYc/fe&'oWFrf

ft£</s?us

f&TTouprrH

TfM5 76/96

OM T/t/F

£2M£M

C/7/7?* cw r/tsj Tft£ ,/P*>V'cfi ^cfsfiTinbive/?snu/rc//T0/1

/?XT/}/? T>77J/? TOf'/VjP tf'&P X/V'ft/SA/g P£TiT/t>At for/zscf£*rt&**y

a>L//?T /tev/A/G co-*f?*#£/?f& s/t& /t7^£>a/ s?u/7 j/e/te&y

e Tc/p&c-
——- _ """"^ /r*^ £

—iimX^t&^>Defendant pro se in tMs caus£s state ** foUowine" u,derhK^^#B^'—'******

mthe Tarrant County jail mTarrant County, Texas. Iam duly qualified ana

authored in all respects to make this declaration. Ihave read the foregoing

Declaration ofConflict and declare that Ihave personal knowledge ofthe facts

contained therein and said facts are true and correct.

EXECUTED in Tarrant County, Texas, pursuant to Art. 132.001 et. seq.,

Texas C.P.R.C. and 28 USC §1746, on this _3L- day of_&2f& •20-^'

d \o<te

100 N.Lamar St.

FortWorth, TX 76102-1954

*Under both federal law (28 USC §1746) and state law (Art 132.001, Texas CP-R.C), ^incarceratedmTexa,may use an unsworn declaration under penalty of

penury in place ofawritten declaration sworn before anotary public

(TWrificafte ofSemce

L_AJL_, hereby certify that atrue and correct copy ofthe above motion

was served on Attorney for the State Tim Cuxry by mailing via first-class mail to JOE

SHANNON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 401 W. BELKNAP ST., FORT WORTH,

TX 76196 on this _li__ day of_iL^± ,20_]£,

Jh^dJlJiJ^ c [Dejmlent'sName], Defendant Pro Se --

100N.Lamar St. -

Fort Worth, TX 76102-1954
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 3 Filed 02/14/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 31