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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1328 

To designate foreign persons who improperly interfere in United States 

elections as inadmissible aliens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2019 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To designate foreign persons who improperly interfere in 

United States elections as inadmissible aliens, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Defending Elections 

5 against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act’’ or ‘‘DETER 

6 Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1328 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINED TERM. 

2 Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(53) The term ‘improper interference in a 

6 United States election’ means conduct by an alien 

7 that— 

8 ‘‘(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting 

9 rights, or campaign finance law; or 

10 ‘‘(ii) is under the direction of a foreign 

11 government; and 

12 ‘‘(B) interferes with a general or primary 

13 Federal, State, or local election or caucus, in14 cluding— 

15 ‘‘(i) the campaign of a candidate; and 

16 ‘‘(ii) a ballot measure, including— 

17 ‘‘(I) an amendment; 

18 ‘‘(II) a bond issue; 

19 ‘‘(III) an initiative; 

20 ‘‘(IV) a recall; 

21 ‘‘(V) a referral; and 

22 ‘‘(VI) a referendum.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1328 IS

1 SEC. 3. IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED STATES 

2 ELECTIONS. 

3 (a) INADMISSIBILITY.—Section 212(a)(3) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(H) IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN A

7 UNITED STATES ELECTION.—Any alien who a 

8 consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland Se9 curity, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney 

10 General knows, or has reasonable grounds to 

11 believe, is seeking admission to the United 

12 States to engage in improper interference in a 

13 United States election, or who has engaged in 

14 improper interference in a United States elec15 tion, is inadmissible.’’. 

16 (b) DEPORTABILITY.—Section 237(a) of the Immi17 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) is amend18 ed by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(8) IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN A UNITED

20 STATES ELECTION.—Any alien who has engaged, is 

21 engaged, or at any time after admission engages in 

22 improper interference in a United States election is 

23 deportable.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-162969, No. 333-159560, No. 333-151249, No. 333-147607, No. 333-143376, No. 333-135403,
No. 333-125511, No. 333-117651, No. 333-106503 and No. 333-42996) of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated June 30, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San
Jose, California
June 30, 2010

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BENJAMIN APONTE-CRUZ, :

: Civil Action No. 11-1531 (RBK)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : MEMORANDUM OPINION

:

DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, :

:

Respondent. :

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pro se

Benjamin Aponte-Cruz

FCI Fort Dix

P.O. Box 2000

Fort Dix, NJ 08640

KUGLER, District Judge

Petitioner Benjamin Aponte-Cruz, a prisoner confined at the

Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has

filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, challenging the calculation of his sentence. 

The filing fee for a petition for wit of habeas corpus is

$5.00. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is

required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for

filing. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2(b), whenever a

prisoner submits a petition for writ of habeas and seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis, that petitioner must submit (a) an

affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the

petitioner is unable to pay the fees and costs of the

proceedings, and (b) a certification signed by an authorized

Case 1:11-cv-01531-RBK Document 2 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 27
officer of the institution certifying (1) the amount presently on

deposit in the prisoner’s prison account and, (2) the greatest

amount on deposit in the prisoners institutional account during

the six-month period prior to the date of the certification. If

the institutional account of the petitioner exceeds $200, the

petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed in forma

pauperis. Local Civil Rule 81.2(c).

Petitioner did not prepay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas

petition as required by Local Civil Rule 54.3(a).

Petitioner submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); however, Petitioner

failed to provide the required certification regarding his

institutional account as required by Local Civil Rule 81.2(b).

2

Case 1:11-cv-01531-RBK Document 2 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 28
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without

prejudice and the Clerk of the Court will be ordered to dismiss

the Petition without prejudice. Petitioner will be granted leave

to move to re-open within 30 days, by either prepaying the filing

fee or submitting a complete application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

s/Robert B. Kugler 

Robert B. Kugler

United States District Judge

Dated: April 6, 2011 

3

Case 1:11-cv-01531-RBK Document 2 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 29
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Sean Mitchell, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MattMar Minerals
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of October, 2006.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Civil Action No.: 11-1754 (JLL) (JAD) 

Plaintiffs, 

v. SCHEDULING ORDER 

BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al. 

Defendants, 

JOSEPH A. DICKSON, U.S.M.J. 

This matter comes before the Court following the June 25, 2015 in-person conferenc m 

this matter. For the reasons set forth on the record during that conference, and for good ca se 

shown, 

IT IS on this 26th day of June 2015 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading on or before July 16, 2015; d 

it is further 

ORDERED that, on or before September 11, 2015, Defendants shall serve (but not 

any motion seeking dismissal of that amended pleading. The parties shall thereafter meet d 

confer to reach mutually agreeable deadlines for Plaintiffs' opposition and Defendants' reply, d 

shall electronically file a letter advising the Court of those deadlines. On or before the parti s' 

agreed opposition deadline, Plaintiffs shall serve (but not file) any papers in opposition to 

Defendants' motion(s). On or before the parties' agreed reply deadline, Defendants s 11 

electronically file any motion(s) to dismiss, Plaintiffs' opposition to any such motion ), 

Defendants' reply submission(s), and any supporting papers; and it is further; 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 155 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4183
ORDERED that the parties shall exchange Rule 26 disclosures on or before October 6, 

2015; and it is further 

ORDERED that any party may serve written discovery requests (limited to interrogato s 

and requests for the production of documents at this time) on or before October 16, 2015; and i is 

further 

ORDERED that an in-person conference is scheduled before the undersigned at 10:00 a 

on October 27, 2015. 

SO ORDERED 

cc: Honorable Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J. 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD Document 155 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4184
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joel Mark, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence H. Bernstein, J.), rendered on or about June 15, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined t hat

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 98-20333 Summary Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. H-92-CR-25-5)

_________________________________________________________________ November 12, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Julio Castro, federal prisoner #33536-054, incarcerated at FCC

Col eman, Florida, appeals the denial of a motion for further

clarification of his sentence. Castro seeks credit for time served

in New York prior to his conviction and sentencing by the district

court for the Southern District of Texas. The court denied

Castro’s motion on the merits.

We must first, however, consider jurisdiction. In re Moody
,

41 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the motion does not

question the federal sentence itself, but rather the way in whichit is imposed, the district court should have construed C astro’s

request as a petition for a w rit of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, rather than as a motion attacking sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. U nited States v. Cleto
, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th

Cir. 1992 ); United States v. Gabor , 905 F.2d 76, 77-78 (5th Cir.

1990). And, only the district in which a prisoner is held has

jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 petition. G abor
, 905 F.2d at 78.

Castro is incarcerated in Flori da. Consequently, the district

cou rt’s denial is vacated and this matter remanded with

instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

VACATED AND REMANDED
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC-JAD Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 26, 2016

t0718 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

150092

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150092

COA: 322748

Berrien CC: 2013

- 016473

- FC

ARTHUR B. JONES, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of February 3, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the August 21,

2014 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending th e decision in People

v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided

on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REM AND this case to the

Berrien Circuit Court for consideration of the defendant’s issue regarding the assessment

of court costs. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be r eviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 19    Filed 09/11/10   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 167

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 19    Filed 09/11/10   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 168
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5122 

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 

of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 terms. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 

Mr. NEY (for himself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to 

permit members of the Board of Directors of the Office 

of Compliance to serve for 2 terms. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING SECOND TERM FOR BOARD OF DI4 RECTORS OF OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section 

6 301(e)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

7 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘A 

8 member of the Board may be reappointed, but no indi9 vidual may serve as a member for more than 2 terms.’’. 
2 

HR 5122 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to individuals serv3 ing on the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance 

4 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.20


 


Description of Non-Employee Director
Compensation


 


Compensation for non-employee directors of Equifax Inc. (the
“Company”) effective January 1, 2013 consisted of the following:


 


	 	·	a $75,000 annual cash retainer, payable quarterly in arrears, for all non-employee directors; new directors receive a prorated cash retainer in the quarter from the date they were elected;


 


	 	·	a supplemental annual cash retainer of $20,000 for the Chair of the Audit Committee, $15,000 for the Chair of the Compensation, Human Resources & Management Succession Committee and $7,500 for the Chair of the Governance and Technology Committees;


 


	 	·	a supplemental annual cash retainer of $10,000 for non-Chair members of the Audit Committee, $7,500 for the non-Chair members of the Compensation, Human Resources & Management Succession Committee and $3,750 for the non-Chair members of the Governance and Technology Committees;


 


	 	·	following each annual meeting of shareholders of the Company, continuing directors will receive a grant of Company common stock, in the form of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) with a market value on the grant date of $125,000. Effective May 2013, the market value of the annual grant will be increased to $135,000. These grants vest over a period of one year, subject to accelerated vesting in certain events; and 


 


	 	·	upon first being elected a director of the Company, a director will receive a one-time initial grant of RSUs vesting over a three-year period, with a grant date market value of $175,000. These grants vest over a period of three years, subject to accelerated vesting in certain events.


 


Cash retainers and equity awards may be deferred under the applicable
Director deferred compensation plan.


 


The Board of Directors has a policy on stock ownership that
requires each non-employee director to beneficially own common stock of the Company having a value which is at least five times
the annual cash retainer fee, no later than the fifth anniversary of the annual meeting at which the director was first elected
to the Board.
Case 2:11-cv-03465-FSH -PS Document 19 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 191
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Darwin, Ihuoma G., Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Independent Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Freiberg, Peck &amp; Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered November 16, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-2405 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 25, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Charles M. Lizza

William C. Baton

SAUL EWING LLP

One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 1 520

Newark, New Jersey 07 102-5426

(973) 286-6700

clizza@saul.com

A ttorneys for Plaintiff

Ce/gene Coiporation

William J. O’Shaughnessy

Jonathan M.I1. Short

McCARTER & ENGLIsH, LLP

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 639-2094

Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Coiporation and Novartis Pharma AG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CELGENE CORPORATiON, NOVARTIS Civil Action No. 11-2356 (KM)(MCA)

PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,

and NOVARTIS PHARMA AG, Hon. Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J.

Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.M.J.

Plaintiffs,

v. (Filed Electronically)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

Defendant.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rules 41(a)(1) and 41(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Plaintiffs and Defendant hereby stipulate and agree that the above actions, including all claims.

counterclaims and affirmative defenses, are dismissed without prejudice. and without costs,

disbursements or attorneys’ fees to any party.

Case 2:11-cv-02356-KM-MCA Document 27 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 174
SO STIPULATED:

Dated: August 22, 2012

By: s/ William J. O’Shaughnessy

William J. O’Shaughnessv

Jonathan M.H. Short

McCARTER & ENGLIsH, LLP

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 639-2094

woshaughnessy@mccarter.com

OF COUNSEL:

Henry J. Renk

Tara A. t3yrne

FITZPATRiCK. CELL.A, HARPER & ScINT0

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10104

(212) 218-2100

Attorneysfar Plaintijj

iVovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

and Novartis Pharma AG

By: s/ Michael E. Patunas

Allyn Z. Lite

Michael E. Patunas

Mayra V. Tarantino

Lim DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 623-3000

alite’d1itedepalma.com

mpatunasf1itedepalma.com

mtarantino(l itedepalma.com

Respe ully ubmitted,

By:

s M. Lizza

William C. I3aton

SAUL EWING LLP

One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 1520

Newark, New Jersey 07 102-5426

(973) 286-6700

clizza@saul .corn

OF COUNSEL:

Anthony M. Insogna

JONES DAY

12265 El Carnino Real. Suite 200

San Diego, California 92 130-4096

(858) 314-1200

Jason G. Winchester

JONEs DAY

77 West Wacker

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692

(312) 782-3939

Attorneys /ör Plaintiff

Ce/gene Corporation

Case 2:11-cv-02356-KM-MCA Document 27 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 175
OF COUNSEL:

Jeffer Au

Samuel T. Lockner

CARLs0N CAsPERs VANDEBuRGH

LINOQuIsT & ScHuMAN, PA

225 South Sixth Street

Suite 4200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

(612) 436-9690

jali@carlsoncaspers.com

A ttorneysjbr Defendant

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..

SO ORDERED on this 23e( day of , 2012.

HON. KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D(J.

-j -

Case 2:11-cv-02356-KM-MCA Document 27 Filed 08/24/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 176