alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

The following table lists, as of December 31, 2008, our subsidiaries, all of
which are wholly owned, and indicates the jurisdiction of organization of each subsidiary.



|                                     |  |                   
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|Subsidiary Name                      |  | Where Incorporated
|Sonic Innovations Pty Ltd.           |  | Australia         
|Sonic Innovations Canada Ltd.        |  | Canada            
|Sonic Innovations A/S                |  | Denmark           
|Omni Sonic Innovations ApS           |  | Denmark           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH               |  | Austria           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH               |  | Switzerland       
|Sonic Innovations Ltd.               |  | United Kingdom    
|StarMedical B.V.                     |  | Netherlands       
|Hoorcomfort B.V.                     |  | Netherlands       
|Hoertoestelcentrum Sneek B.V.        |  | Netherlands       
|Sonic Innovations GmbH               |  | Germany           
|NuSound Hearing Aid Laboratory, Inc. |  | Oklahoma          
|HEARING Life USA, Inc.               |  | Delaware          
|Colorado Hearing, LLC                |  | Utah
**EXHIBITNO. 21**

**                                                                  SUBSIDIARIESOF NUI CORPORATION**

NUIUtilities, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUI Capital Corp. (a FloridaCorporation), Virginia Gas Company (a Delaware Corporation), NUI SaltvilleStorage, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), and NUI Storage, Inc. (a DelawareCorporation) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of NUI Corporation.

NUIEnergy, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), NUI Energy Brokers, Inc. (a DelawareCorporation), Utility Business Services, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUIEnvironmental Group, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUI Energy Solutions Inc.(a New Jersey Corporation), NUI Sales Management, Inc. (a DelawareCorporation), NUI Services, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUI International,Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) and NUI Telecom, Inc. (formerly known asInternational Telephone Group, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation) are wholly-ownedsubsidiaries of NUI Capital Corp.

VirginiaGas Pipeline Company, Virginia Gas Storage Company and Virginia GasDistribution Company (all Virginia Corporations) are wholly-owned subsidiariesof Virginia Gas Company.

TICEnterprises, LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability Company) is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of NUI Sales Management, Inc.

NUI/CaritradeInternational, L.L.C. (a Delaware Limited Liability Company) is a 90 percentowned subsidiary of NUI International, Inc.

SaltvilleGas Storage Company, LLC (a Virginia Limited Liability Company) is a 50 percentowned subsidiary of NUI Saltville Storage, Inc.

NUIRichton Storage, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) is a 100 percent ownedsubsidiary of NUI Storage, Inc.

RichtonGas Storage Company, LLC (Delaware Limited Liability Company) is a 100 percentowned subsidiary of NUI Richton Storage, Inc.

NUIUkraine (a Delaware Corporation) is a 100 percent owned subsidiary of NUIInternational, Inc. and NUI Hungary, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) is a 90percent owned subsidiary of NUI International, Inc. and a 10 percent ownedsubsidiary of NUI Energy Brokers.

Hungarian Portfolio Management and Trading, LLC (a HungarianLimited Liability Company) is a 100 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Hungary,Inc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramsey Milton, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 883]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter and *562Garni, JJ., concur. *[See*11 Misc 3d 1073(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50543(11) (2006).]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5039 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5039

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ``Eva 
                        Holtzman Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2004

    Mr. Butterfield (for himself, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Jones of North 
    Carolina, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coble, Mr. 
 McIntyre, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Taylor of North 
 Carolina, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Miller of North Carolina) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ``Eva 
                        Holtzman Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. EVA HOLTZMAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Eva Holtzman Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Eva Holtzman 
Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
March
29, 2002  VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION  Securities
and Exchange Commission Division
of Corporation Finance 450
Fifth Street, N.W. Washington,
D.C. 20549  Re:File Nos. 1-12869 and 1-1910 Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001  Ladies
and Gentlemen:  We
are transmitting to you the Form 10-K of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company for the year ended December 31, 2001 for
filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Pursuant to General Instruction D(3) of Form 10-K, the financial
statements in the Form 10-K reflect our adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133,as amended by SFAS No. 138, Accounting
for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities.  Kindly
direct any notice concerning the Form 10-K or any questions or comments
regarding our filing to me or Thomas E. Ruszin, Jr. at (410) 783-3610.  Kindly
direct all EDGAR matters to Charles W. Starkey at (410) 783-3620.  Our
fax number for any communication to all of these individuals is (410) 783-3629.  Very
truly yours,  /s/ E. Follin SmithE. Follin Smith   Enclosure  cc:
  H.
  Christopher Owings, Securities and Exchange CommissionT.
  E. Ruszin, Jr.C.
  W. Starkey
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 9
Case 1:11-cv-01425-JBS -JS Document 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 10
[Dkt. Nos. 34, 37]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

:

ROBYN A. BORGESI, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil No. 11-1560 (RMB/JS)

:

v. : ORDER

:

PREMIER IMMEDIATE MEDICAL :

CARE, et al., :

Defendants. :

:

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b); and 

IT APPEARING that on April 1, 2013, United States Magistrate

Judge Joel Schneider filed a Report and Recommendation in this

case [Dkt. No. 37] recommending that this matter be dismissed;

and 

THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiff Robyn A. Borgesi was given,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2), until

April 15, 2013 to respond or otherwise object to this Report and

Recommendation [Dkt. No. 26]; and 

THE COURT NOTING that no objections have been received as of

today’s date; and 

IT APPEARING, after review, that this Court should adopt

Judge Schneider’s Report and Recommendation without modification;

IT IS on this 25th day of April 2013, hereby 

Case 1:11-cv-01560-RMB-JS Document 38 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 181
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation is

adopted and entered; and it is further

ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01560-RMB-JS Document 38 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 182
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10967

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

LaBrandon Marquise Gill, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:19-CR-93-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

LaBrandon Gill was convicted by a jury of two counts of bank robbery 

by intimidation per 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court sentenced him to 

210 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release on each 

count, to run concurrently, and $3,879 in restitution. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10967 Document: 00515665306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
No. 19-10967

2

On appeal, Gill argues that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the 

intimidation element of § 2113(a) for each robbery. Although Gill concedes 

that his motion for judgment of acquittal was untimely, he contends that he 

preserved the issue because he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in 

his motion for a mistrial. That motion concerned a witness’s credibility and 

alleged perjury as distinguished from the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, 

plain-error review applies, and Gill must establish “(1) an error (2) that is 

clear or obvious and that (3) affected [his] substantial rights.” United States

v. Reed, 974 F.3d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “If the first three prongs are satisfied, we may exercise our

discretion to correct the error only if it (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

When robbing the first bank, Gill gave a note to a teller that said 

“$10,000 in bundles” and orally told her to “just make this easy.” When 

robbing the second bank, he gave a note to a teller instructing her to “go to 

the vault and get $10,000” and not to “make this harder than it has to be.” 

Gill cannot show that it was a clear or obvious error to consider his demands 

for money and instructions to the tellers as implicit threats and thus sufficient 

evidence of intimidation. See United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1357−58

(5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-10967 Document: 00515665306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
Exhibit 32.1

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -0XLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Quantum Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005,as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Kelleher, President 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.

March 26, 2006                            /s/ Michael Kelleher
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Michael Kelleher
                                              President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Geronimo Ramos, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 116]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered on or about March 14, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Vance T. Canty, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 396]

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant, a security officer, variously testified that he did not report to work as scheduled because he needed to earn more money and had sustained certain injuries during a prior confrontation with a coworker. The case law makes clear, however, that neither dissatisfaction with one’s wages *(see Matter of Feliciano [Commissioner of Labor],*39 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2007]; *Matter of Bollweg [Commissioner of Labor],*288 AD2d 811 [2001]) nor conflicts with a coworker *(see Matter of Odock [Independent Living—Commissioner of Labor],*254 AD2d 551, 552 [1998]) constitutes good cause for leaving one’s employment. With regard to the alleged confrontation with the coworker and resulting injuries, of which the employer’s representative apparently was unaware, the medical documentation submitted by claimant indicates that he did not seek treatment until approximately two months after such incident purportedly occurred and, in any event, there is no indication that claimant received medical advice to leave his employment. To the extent that claimant and the employer’s representative offered conflicting accounts as to the circum*944stances surrounding claimant’s separation from employment, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Casey [Commissioner of Labor],*37 AD3d 964, 964-965 [2007]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
      have
      issued our reports dated March 7, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule (which reports expressed an unqualified opinion and
      contain an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial
      Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for
      Uncertainty in Income Taxes” and FAS 123(R), “Share-Based Payment”) and
      management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting included in the Annual Report of Airspan Networks Inc. on Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference of the said reports in the Registration Statements
      of
      Airspan Networks Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-115788, effective May 24,
      2004,
      File No. 333-62024, effective May 31, 2001, File No.333-62032 effective May
      31,
      2001, File No. 333-45260, effective September 6, 2000, and File No. 333-45262,
      effective September 6, 2000) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-143667 effective June
      11, 2007, File No. 333-140172, effective January 24, 2007 and File No.
      333-127479 effective August 12, 2005).






Grant
      Thornton LLP




Miami,
      Florida




March
      7,
      2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Sheard, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 882]

*568The defendant’s contentions, including the contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cr-00163-FSH Document 40 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 72
Case 2:11-cr-00204-SDW Document 18 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00204-SDW Document 18 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33
Exhibit 10.58

 

FIRST AMENDMENT
 TO THE
 GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

 

WHEREAS, General Growth Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) maintains the General Growth Properties, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) to assist employees of the Company, GGP Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and General Growth Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and their respective subsidiaries in acquiring a stock ownership interest in the Company; and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors of the Company deemed it to be in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan to increase the number of offering periods a participant can participate in the Plan from two to four and approved such amendment.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

The definition of “Offering Period” in Section 2(o) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Offering Period” means each of the three-month periods commencing January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 or such other dates which may be determined by the Committee.”

 

If any provision of this First Amendment conflicts with any provisions of the Plan, the provisions of this First Amendment shall prevail. Except as hereby amended, the capitalized terms appearing in this First Amendment shall have the same meaning assigned in the Plan.  Except as hereby amended, all other terms of the Plan remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be signed and effective on its behalf by its duly authorized officer this 20th day of November, 2012.

 

	
 
    	
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Stacie L. Herron
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Stacie L. Herron, Vice President and   Secretary
1 ... T h i s proc ee di n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2006- CR
- 3128B , s t y l ed St at e v . Je s s e M endez , i n t he 14 4t h J udi ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Ca t heri ne T o rr es- Stahl presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 38 0- CR IN RE J esse ME NDE Z Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 9, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON On May 17, 2010, rela tor J esse Me ndez filed a pe tition for writ of m andamus, c omplaining
a bo ut t he tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to p ro vid e him a fr e e c op y of the re c or d a

nd state me nt o f f

a c ts f ro m hi s underlying f

elony conviction so that he can prepare his post-conviction application for writ of ha beas corpus. In 2008, rela tor was c onvicted of r obbery and was sentenc ed to 55 y ear s’ conf inement. On Dec ember

30, 2009, this court aff

irmed the c onviction. On ly the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls h a s juri sd ic tio n o ve r matt ers rela te d to po stconviction re lief fr om an otherw ise final fe lony conviction. Se e At e r v . Ei gh th C ou rt o f A pp e als , 802 S.W. 2d 24 1, 24 3 ( Te x. 19 91 ); see also T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 11.07 (V ernon Supp.04
- 10
- 00 38 0- CR

- 2- 20 09 ); Bo ar

d of Pa rd on s & Pa ro le

s e x re l. Ke e ne v . Cou rt of

Ap pe als for Ei gh th D ist
. , 910 S.W .2d 48 1, 48 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ) ( ho ldi ng th at “Art icl e 11 .0 7 p ro vid e s th e e xclu siv e me a ns to
c ha lle ng e a

fi na l f e lony c on vic tio n. ” ). B e c a

us e the re lie f sou g ht in re la tor ’s pe tit ion re la te s to po stconviction re lief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction t o consider his petition for writ of mandamus. Acc ording ly , re l at or’s pe tition i s DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON. P E R C U R I A M DO NO T PU B L I SH
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KAZ MIKOL-CHARLS CATALANO, ) DOC #C11636, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1845 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge. Luke Newman of Luke Newman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Case 2:11-cr-00286-SRC Document 98 Filed 04/27/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 79
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4968

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

25 McHenry Street in Rosine, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 25 McHenry Street in Rosine, Kentucky, as 

the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. BILL MONROE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 25 McHenry Street in Rosine, 

6 Kentucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Bill 

7 Monroe Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 
2

•HR 4968 IH 

1 be deemed to be a reference to the Bill Monroe Post Of2 fice.

Æ
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 4
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 5
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 6
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 7
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 8
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 9
Case 2:10-cr-00437-SRC Document 3 Filed 07/01/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 166-4 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 5425
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 166-4 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5426