alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 5008

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To provide an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business

Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through September 30,

2004, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS

UNDER SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS

INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

The authorization for any program, authority, or provision,

including any pilot program, that was extended through June 4,

2004, by section 1 of Public Law 108–217 is further extended

through September 30, 2004, under the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 2 of Public Law 108–205 is amended by striking

‘‘October 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘March 15, 2004’’. The amendment

made by the preceding sentence shall take effect as if included

in the enactment of the section to which it relates.

SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF AGENTS.

Section 5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (g)(4), by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(C) The Administration may contract with an agent

to carry out, on behalf of the Administration, the assessment and collection of the annual fee established under

section 7(a)(23). The agent may receive, as compensation

for services, any interest earned on the fee while in the

control of the agent before the time at which the agent

is contractually required to remit the fee to the Administration.’’; and

(2) in subsection (h)—

(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);

and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

‘‘(2) The agent described in paragraph (1)(B) may be compensated through any of the fees assessed under this section

and any interest earned on any funds collected by the agent

while such funds are in the control of the agent and before

the time at which the agent is contractually required to transfer
H. R. 5008—2

such funds to the Administration or to the holders of the

trust certificates, as appropriate.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
II 

Calendar No. 82 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1231 

To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

COONS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. 

HAWLEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GARDNER, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. CRAMER, and Ms. 

HARRIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 9, 2019 

Reported by Mr. GRAHAM, with amendments 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 

Program. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1231 RS

1 SECTION 1. BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT 

2 PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of 

4 the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

5 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(23)) is amended by striking ‘‘part 

6 Y’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘part Y, 

7 $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2020, and each fiscal year 

8 thereafter.’’. 

9 (b) PROGRAM NAME.—Part Y of title I of the Omnibus 

10 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

11 10531 et seq.) is amended by inserting before section 2501 

12 the following: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 2500. PATRICK LEAHY BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNER14 SHIP GRANT PROGRAM. 

15 ‘‘The program under this part shall be known as the 

16 ‘Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Pro17 gram’.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 82 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1231 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 

Grant Program. 

MAY 9, 2019 

Reported with amendments 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11
Case 1:11-cv-00077-JEI -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/06/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 15 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 15 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 27
June 18, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LARRY JOE GERKE, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00757-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Larry Joe Gerke.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
- 2000-01-1
- 2000-01-2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0411. BRIDGETTE MORRIS v. BRUCE DAVIS SMITH.

Bridgette Morris and Bruce Smith were divorced in 2010. Their divorce decree

required Smith to make monthly payments to Morris for the support of the parties’

then-minor child. A settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree

further required Smith to pay for the child’s private education and extracurricular

activities.

In 2018, Smith filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in which he sought

a declaration that his obligations had terminated in December 2017 pursuant to the

terms of the divorce decree and settlement agreement. The trial court granted Smith’s

petition, and Morris filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred

the matter to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.

Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising

out of a divorce decree and does not involve child custody, the case is a domestic

relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate

of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must

be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(2), (b); Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal in a

domestic relations case in which custody is not at issue must be brought by

discretionary application); Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257,

257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996) (“Regardless how this case was couched or pursued, it

involves collection of child support moneys and it is a domestic relations matter.”)

(punctuation omitted). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

October 05, 2018
jurisdictional.” Smoak, 221 Ga. App. at 257. Morris’s failure to follow the proper

procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. See id. at 257-258.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/05/2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAMES A. WIATT and ELIZABETH

RIEGER WIATT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, et al., 

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 10-6608 (JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge. 

This matter comes before the Court bywayof motions to the dismissthe Complaint, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by Defendants Winston & Strawn, LLP and

Jonathan Bristol, respectively [Docket Entry No. 29 and 30]. Based on the reasons set forth in the

Court’s corresponding Opinion dated June 24, 2011, 

IT IS on this 24 day of June, 2011, th

ORDERED that Defendants’ motions [Docket EntryNos. 29 and 30] are granted in part and

denied in part; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint which cures the pleading

deficiencies discussed in the Court’s June 24, 2011 Opinion on or before August 22, 2011. Failure

to do so may result in dismissal of the claims at issue with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Case 2:10-cv-06608-JLL-MAH Document 68 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 611
CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ALEXANDER D. MITTELL, : Civil Action No. 11-1669 (FSH)

:

Plaintiff, :

v. :

: O R D E R

PHD VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.:

:

Defendants. :

 

It appearing that it has been reported to the Court that the above-entitled action has been

settled,

IT IS on this the 4 day of October, 2011, th

ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the

right, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to make an application to the Court if the settlement

is not consummated. Failure to consummate the settlement will not result in the reopening of this

matter by the Court to address the merits of the case; rather, if the settlement is not consummated,

the Court will entertain an application solely to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Counsel are on notice that the good cause requirement will be stringently applied, and will require

an affidavit detailing (a) the terms of the settlement agreement; and (b) why settlement could not be

consummated within 60 days. 

ORDERED that the terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated herein by reference

and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement to enforce its terms. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01669-FSH-PS Document 28 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 517
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOSE ANTONIO RIVERA-QUINONES,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 169 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21st day of December, 2015, the Petition for L eave to File** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** DENIED

**.**
---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3            (i)
    
    any Notes and the Subsidiary Guarantees until the earliest of (i) their effective
registration under the Securities Act and the resale of all such Notes and Subsidiary Guarantees in
accordance with the Shelf Registration Statement, (ii) the date on which such Notes and Subsidiary
Guarantees are (A) sold pursuant to Rule 144 under circumstances in which any legend borne by such
Notes and Subsidiary Guarantees relating to restrictions on transferability thereof, under the
Securities Act or otherwise, is removed or (B) freely transferable without restriction under Rule
144(k) or (iii) the date on which such Notes have been converted (and the related Subsidiary
Guarantees have been terminated) or otherwise cease to be outstanding;(ii)
    
    any Shares issuable upon conversion of any Notes constituting Registrable Securities,
until the earliest of (i) their effective registration under the Securities Act and the resale of
all such Shares in accordance with the Shelf Registration Statement, (ii) the date on which such
Shares are (A) sold pursuant to Rule 144 under circumstances in which any legend borne by such
Shares relating to restrictions on transferability thereof, under the Securities Act or otherwise,
is removed or (B) freely transferable without restriction under Rule 144(k) or (iii) the date on
which such Shares cease to be outstanding.




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



13




---



##### 



14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



16




---



##### 



17




---



##### 



18




---



##### 



19




---



##### 



Very truly yours,
CALGON CARBON CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Leroy M. BallName:
    Leroy M. BallTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerCALGON CARBON INVESTMENTS, INC.By:
    /s/ Leroy M. BallName:
    Leroy M. BallTitle:
    Vice President and SecretaryBSC COLUMBUS, LLCBy:
    /s/ Leroy M. BallName:
    Leroy M. BallTitle:
    ManagerCCC COLUMBUS, LLCBy:
    /s/ Leroy M. BallName:
    Leroy M. BallTitle:
    Manager  J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES INC.By:
    /s/ Santosh SreenivasanName:
    Santosh SreenivasanTitle:
    Vice President
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         JURISDICTION OF
                    NAME/LOCATION                                         INCORPORATION
                    -------------                                         -------------
<S>                                                                  <C>
DMC Telecom U.K. Ltd., Lanarkshire, Scotland                         State of Delaware, USA

DMC de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Mexico D.F., Mexico                     Mexico City, Mexico

DMC do Brasil Ltda., Campinas, Brazil                                Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Stratex Networks, Inc., Makati City, Philippines                     Metro Manila, Philippines

DMC Stratex Networks India Private Limited, New Delhi, India         New Delhi, India

DMC Stratex Networks (NZ) Limited, Wellington, New Zealand           Wellington, New Zealand

Digital Microwave Corporation South Africa (Proprietary)             Republic of South Africa
Limited, Pretoria, South Africa

DMC Stratex Networks (S) Pte. Ltd., Singapore                        Republic of Singapore
</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 7 Filed 02/16/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 50
911 A.2d 67

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN HOWARD, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

November 22, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited solely to defendant’s extended-term sentence. On that issue, the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
---

Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Pure Minerals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 14, 2011 | /s/ Nicolas Matossian                                   
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Nicolas Matossian                                       
|                     | Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief
      Financial
|                     | Officer                                                 

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, 

WENDY BAHNSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC 

NEUROMODULATION CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

x

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

 Case No. 2:11-1210

 (JMV/SCM)

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND 

EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730(d)

______________________________________ x

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC 

NEUROMODULATION CORPORATION,

Counterclaim-Plaintiff,

v.

WENDY BAHNSEN AND CAROLINA 

FUENTES,

Counterclaim- Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

_______________________________________X

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion of Relators’ counsel for an 

award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses (“Motion”), IT IS, on this ____________ day of 

_____________, 2019;

ORDERED as follows:

The Motion is GRANTED. Within ten (10) business days of this Order, Defendant 

Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation is ordered to pay to Relators’ counsel

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM Document 469-16 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 20099
2

$6,628,709.50 in fees and $879,173.48 in costs and expenses related to litigating the merits of 

the case (a sub-total of $7,507,882.98), and $84,327.50 in fees and $29,698.34 in costs and 

expenses related to litigating this fee dispute (a sub-total of $114,025.84), for a total of 

$7,621,908.82.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM Document 469-16 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 20100
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO OCAMPO CASTRO, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-72328 Agency No. A087-051-068
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 19, 2013 **

San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Ocampo Castro petitions for review of the decision of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstating his 1997 order of deportation. 

# FILED
APR 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S .C. § 1252, and we deny Castro’s petition for review. Castro does not allege any gross miscarriage of justice in the 1997 removal proceedings. Nor does Castro dispute that his reinstated removal meets all of the elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Thus, Castro has failed to present any justiciable issue on appeal. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 539 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2008). Castro’s due process rights were also notviolated when DHS reinstated his removal. Castro does not have a protected liberty interest in having his adjustment of status application adjudicated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (“the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief ” (emphasis added)). Even if Castro did have a due process right, he has failed to show error and substantial prejudice. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service did not err in denying Castro’s Form I-212 waiver when it determined that Castro did not meet the statutory requirements for consent to reapply under section 212(a)(9)(A) of th e Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.3
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 20, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-2257

Lower Tribunal No. 13-27684

________________

Giuliana Gomez De Cordova 

n/k/a Giuliana Llanso,

Appellant,

vs.

Jose Gomez De Cordova,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna 

Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Cruz Legal, P.A., and Marisol Cruz; Martinez-Scanziani & Associates 

Law, P.A. and Denise Martinez-Scanziani, for appellant.

Valdespino & Associates, P.A., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, for 

appellee.

Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Llanso v. Gomez de Cordova, 263 So. 3d 137, 140-41 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (noting that “[o]ur reversal, however, is without prejudice 

to the trial court’s re-entry of a similar final judgment and subsequent orders 

as the interlocutory appeal has been dismissed”); see also Cadwell v. 

Cadwell, 549 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (explaining that a final 

judgment may be reentered on remand “as the trial court deems 

appropriate”); Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson, 82 So. 3d 137, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2012) (“We note that, on remand, the trial court is authorized to re-enter the 

final judgment since the interlocutory appeals that prevented that court from 

disposing of the case have been resolved with finality.”).

Both appellant and appellee move for appellate attorney’s fees. 

Pursuant to Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), we remand both 

motions for appellate attorney’s fees to the trial court for further proceedings 

thereon.
Case 2:11-cr-00130-SRC Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-cr-00130-SRC Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-cr-00130-SRC Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cr-00130-SRC Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NANCY MRAKOVICH : Civil Action No. 11-378(FLW)

 : 

 Plaintiff, : ORDER OF DISMISSAL

:

:

v. :

:

:

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE :

INSURANCE COMPANY :

 Defendant. :

:

:

It having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned action has been settled in its

entirety;

IT IS on this 22 day of September, 2011; ND

ORDERED THAT: 

(1) This action is herebyDISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon

motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to reopen this action if the settlement is not

consummated; and 

(2) If any party shall move to set aside this Order of Dismissal as provided in the first 

paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion the Court

retains jurisdiction of the matter to the extent necessary to enforce the terms and conditions of any

settlement entered into between the parties. 

 s/Freda L. Wolfson

Freda L. Wolfson

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 20 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 64