alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edward Paul NEWSOME, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10482

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*330John W. Stickels, Esq., Stickels & Associates, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Edward Paul Newsome, Memphis, TN, pro se.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Edward Paul Newsome has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Newsome has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Newsome’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Newsome’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *331the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WAYNE O. REVEL, JR.,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 177, 2020

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1906000518 (S)

§ 

§

§

Submitted: October 19, 2020

 Decided: October 28, 2020

O R D E R

On June 16, 2020, the Court issued a briefing schedule; the appellant’s 

opening brief was due July 31, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk 

sent a brief delinquency letter to the appellant. On August 24, 2020, the Chief 

Deputy Clerk issued a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show 

cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief 

and appendix. On September 8, 2020, the postal service returned the August 24 

notice with the designations “attempted-not known” and “unable to forward.” On 

September 16, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk obtained an updated address for the 

appellant and resent the notice to the new address by certified mail. On October 6, 

2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk resent the notice to the new address by first-class mail. 

On October 19, 2020, the postal service returned the September 16 notice with the 
2

designations “unclaimed” and “unable to forward.” The appellant having failed to 

respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period or to report 

any change of address to the Court, dismissal of this action is deemed unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

 Justice
CLYDE& CO US LLP

200 Campus Drive

Suite 300

Florham Park, NJ, 07932-0950

(973) 210-6700

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Baymont Franchise Systems, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, iNC.,

a Delaware Corporation, Civil Action No. 11-cv-3 193 (DMC)(MF)

Plaintiff.

v. , FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AS

TO MA LAN WALLACH ONLY

YOUNGEVITY MINERAL SPA, LLC, an

Indiana limited liability company; and MA

LAN WALLACH, an individual,

Defendants.

This matter having been opened to the Court by plaintiff, Baymont Franchise

Systems, Inc. (“BFS”), by its attorneys, Clyde & Co US LLP, seeking the entry of Final Judgment

by Default against defendant, Ma Lan Wallach (“Defendant”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2);

and it appearing that the Complaint in this matter was filed on June 2, 2011, seeking damages as a

result ofthe breach of a franchise agreement between BFS and Youngevity Mineral Spa, LLC, and

service of a copy ofthe Summons and Complaint having been effectuated with respect to defendant

Ma Lan Wallach by serving her via certified and regular mail on June 26, 2011; and it appearing

that default was duly noted by the Clerk of the Court against Ma Lan Wallach on July 16, 2012 via

Consent Order; and the Court having review d the papers; and good cause having been shown:

IT IS on this / dayof .2012,

Case 2:11-cv-03193-DMC-MF Document 33 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 339
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that BFS have judgment against Ma

Lan Wallach, in the total amount of $163,345 .70, comprised ofthe following:

a) $147,765.56 for Recurring Fees (principal plus prejudgment interest); and

b) $16,580.14 for attorneys’ fees and costs.

— -

____——

DE IS M. CAVANA ,

Case 2:11-cv-03193-DMC-MF Document 33 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 340
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6282

KEVIN MICHAEL COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-354-2) Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Michael Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, though we grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Angelone , CA-97-354-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued April 21 , 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00388 - CR

——————————— ROBERT MITCHELL ALEXANDER , Appella nt V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 0779737

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Robert Mitchell Alexander, is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s refusal to rule on his motion for a nunc pro tunc hearing and for an order for unauthorized verdict and void illegal sentence. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.2

The ri ght to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 44.02 ; Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App . 2014). The Court’s records indicate that appellant appealed his conviction and that conviction was affirmed by opinion issued on October 28, 1999. See Alexander v. State , No. 01

- 98

- 00506

- CR, 1999 WL 977815 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 28, 1999, pet. ref’d). The clerk’s record contains no subsequent appealable order entered by the trial court. The trial court refused to sign a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. Because appellant has not appealed from an order or judgment of convicti on for which there is statutory authorization, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ragston , 424 S.W.3d at 52 (whether court of appeals has jurisdiction depends upon whether appeal is authorized by law). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Any
pe nding motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
#### William MARROW-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., John Doe, M.D. Physician; John Doe, M.D.; John Doe, M.D. Supervisor/Physician; John Doe, M.D. Physician Assistant; Moss, M.D. Physician; John Doe, Health Administrator/Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-7375.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

*305William Marrow-El, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Mary Elizabeth Smith, Karmon *&*Graham, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Marrow-El appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Marrow-El v. Corr. Med. Servs.,*No. 1:11-cv-00221-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2011 & Aug. 8, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ELENA MONTANEZ, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICES, 

INC. f/k/a MONARCH RECOVERY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., 

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO: 2:11-cv-03661 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), it is hereby stipulated, by 

and between counsel for Plaintiff, Elena Montanez, and Defendant, Academy Collection 

Services Inc. f/k/a Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., that this action and all of the 

claims set forth therein are dismissed with prejudice. 

/s/ Amy L. Bennecoff /s/ Rocco Casale 

Amy L. Bennecoff, Esquire Rocco Casale, Esquire 

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. Stevens & Schwab 

30 East Butler Avenue 100 Connell Drive, Suite 100 

Ambler, PA 19002 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 

(215)540-8888 (908) 679-4999 

abennecoff@creditlaw.com Rocco.casale@chartisinsurance.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Attorney for Defendant, 

Elena Montanez Academy Collection Services Inc. 

f/k/a Monarch Recovery 

Management, Inc. 

Case 2:11-cv-03661-SRC-MAS Document 15 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 44
October 1, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HERBERT GARFILED GAR DNER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00690

- 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 orde r this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34372-34373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16864]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Meetings; Sunshine Act

Agenda

Time and Date:  9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 28, 2009.

Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC. 
20594.

Status: The one item is open to the public.

Matter to be Considered: 8132 Aircraft Accident Report--Crash of Cessna 
500, N113SH, Following an In-Flight Collision With Large Birds, 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 4, 2008

News Media Contact: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

[[Page 34373]]

    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour 
prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, July 24, 2009.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: Friday, July 10, 2009.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-16864 Filed 7-13-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129381 Michael F. Cavanagh 129382 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. LAUREL YEOMANS and Stephen J. Markman, STEVEN YEOMANS, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 129381, 129382 COA: 252216, 252392 Wayne CC: 03-308574-NO WAYNE COUNTY and WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 19, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0221 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.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16446]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13449-000]


McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted 
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing 
Applications

July 6, 2009.
    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Markland Hydrokinetic 
Project, located on the Ohio River, in Gallatin County, Kentucky, and 
Switzerland County, Indiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, 
if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license 
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not 
authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities 
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the 
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A 100 to 300-foot-long 
by 20 to 52-foot-wide barge spudded down to the riverbed; (2) 10 6-8-
foot-long by 6-8-foot-diameter turbine-generators mounted in line along 
the side of the barge; (3) one armored, high-voltage cable transmitting 
the generated power to the existing transmission line located adjacent 
to the proposed project area; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed project would generate about 1,533 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bruce D. McGinnis, Sr., McGinnis, Inc., P.O. Box 
534, 502 Second St. Ext., South Point, OH 45680, phone: (740) 377-4391.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban, 202-502-6211.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the 
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13449) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16446 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BAHADIR YAMS!

Hon. Jose L. Linares

Crim. NO. 11-353 (JLL)

ORDER FOR CONTINtJANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman. United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Shirley U. Emehelu and Sandra L. Moser,

Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), and defendant Bahadir Yahsi

(Catherine N. Brown, Esq. and Paulette Pitt, Esq., appearing),

for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the

above-captioned matter, and the defendant being aware that he has

the right to have the matter brought to trial within 70 days of

the date of his appearance before a judicial officer of this

court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161 (c) (1), and the defendant having consented to such a

continuance, and it appearing that the defendant waives such

right, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reason5:

(1) On September 5, 2012, a status conference was held

in this matter, at which time the Court, with consent of the

parties, scheduled trial for December 3, 2012.

Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 90 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 886
(2) Accordingly, pursuant to Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served by granting

the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this day of September, 2012,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

from September 7, 2012 through December 3, 2012; and it is

further

ORDERED that the period from September. 7, 2012 through

and including December 3, 2012 shall be excludable in computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

L. LINRES

States District Judge

-2-

Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 90 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 887
Form and entry

consented to;

SHIRLEY U. EMEtELU

Assistant U.S. Attorney

CAT.BROQ

?AULETTE PITT, ESQ.

Counsel for defendant Bahadir Yahsi

-3-

Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 90 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 888
re Domando ;

2.4 ravel icted to New

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
: for the
District of New Jersey

Docket No.11-6035

Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release

LES NOW Barbara Hutchinson, PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER, presenting an
: upon the conduct of defendant Andre Domando, who was placed under pretrial
A. Shipp, sitting in the Court at Newark, New

(00,000 Unsecured Appearance Bond, with the following

ny;
Jetsey unless otherwise approved;

3, Surrendi assport. Do not apply for any new travel documents;

aah

eres and ordered this (2 day
: QOlQand ordered filed
part of the records in the above

O11, the defendant appeared before
g at which time the condition of a Third Party Custodian was removed.

g/treatment as deemed necessary by Pretrial Services;
alth treatment as deemed necessary
ty Custodian as approved by Pretrial Services;

by Pretrial Services;

the Honorable Madeline Cox-Arleo for a Bail

The def ant pled guilty before Your Honor on December 16, 2011 to Conspiracy to Distribute
Sentencing has been indefinitely postponed before Your Honor.

spectfully presenting petition for action of Court and for cause as follows:
{SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM]

(THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the condition of Active GPS be removed.

{declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed

on And

Barbara Hutchinson
United States Pretrial Services Officer


Do Not File in CM-ECF

wing information is presented to the Court for consideration to modify conditions

tay contain confidential information that is protected by Title 18 USC 3153(c)(1).
Je distributed to third parties or be placed into the electronic case filing system.

ADDENDUM TO PETITION FOR ACTION ON
'S OF PRETRIAL RELEASE

CONDITION:

resenting petition for action of Court and for cause as follows:

P
s spoke with Assistant United States Attorney, Anthony Mahajan, who consents
to the removal of the active GPS condition.

es has advised defense counsel of the proposed modification of bail and he voices
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > Mag. No. 11-2520 (DEA)
ve
LEONARD RAMIREZ : CONTINUANCE ORDER
SEE EAUANCE ORDER

The defendant having been arrested on a criminal complaint
charging the defendant possession of child pornography, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
2252A(a) (5) (B), having been filed; and the defendant having
appeared before the Court for an initial appearance; and the
defendant having been represented by Brian Reily, Esq.; and the
defendant and his counsel being aware that an Information or
Indictment ordinarily must be filed within thirty (30) days of
defendant’s initial appearance on this charge, pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3161(b); and, pursuant to Title
18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (a), both the united
States and the defendant request this continuance go that the
parties can negotiate a plea agreement and thereby avoid a
possible trial; and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this day of December, 2011

ORDERED that from the date this Order is entered, to and

Q01a
including February 2, 204+, shall be excluded in calculating the
time within which an Information or Indictment must be filed
under the Speedy Trial Act for the following reasons:

1. Both the United States and the defendant desire time to


discuss plea negotiations, which would render any grand jury
proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary;
2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3161(h) (7) (A), the ends of justice served by granting the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant ina speedy trial.

SEEN AND AGREED:

a Aare

Nelson S.T. Thayer, Jr.
Attorney In Charge, Trenton Office

Brian Reily, Esq.
Counsel for Leonard Ramirez

HONORABLE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
United States Magistrate Judge


FAX NO, NW 1455 rH US

Puch. 2 2UIIB 2:10PM PM rovEMAL-rUBLIGmUEreN

discuss plea negotiations, which would vender any grand jury

proceedings and any subsequent trial of this Matter unnecessary;
2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161 (h) (7) (A), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

SEEN AND AGREED:

Nelson S.T. Thayer, Jr.
Attorney In Charge, Trenton Office

HONORABLE DOUG: E. ARPERT
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:11-cr-00354-KSH Document 11 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cr-00354-KSH Document 11 Filed 12/30/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 26