alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ASIRIFI, et al

V.

OMNI ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.

Order of Dismissal

Civil 11-4039-SRC

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

settled, and that the request for an order of dismissal is not based on a desire to adjourn or

delay the proceedings herein;

IT IS on this , 2014

30th DAY OF APRIL

ORDERED THAT:

(1) This action is hereby DISMISSED without cost 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/Stanley R. Chesler,USDJ

Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 103 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1014
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 103 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1015
#### MING LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72128.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*641Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Thomas J. Tango, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ming Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo legal findings. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA assumed that Li was credible and expressly declined to address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Because our review is limited by the scope of the BIA’s order, we deny the petition for review as to this issue. *See Kyung Park v. Holder,*572 F.3d 619, 622 (9th Cir.2009).

Li contends he qualifies for asylum on account of China’s One-Child policy because “he has been both harmed, and threatened with harm” and could be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that his single arrest and beating do not rise to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2006). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Li does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution given that he lived unharmed and worked several different jobs in China for three years after his arrest and given the lack of evidence that anyone in China continues to seek him. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000); *Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.1998). Finally, Li does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he is ineligible for asylum based on his former girlfriend’s forced abortion. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not raised and argued in opening brief are waived). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Li has not met his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the heavier burden of qualifying for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Lastly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Li failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5147

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

23055 Sherman Way in West Hills, California, as the ‘‘Evan Asa 

Ashcraft Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2004

Mr. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of California, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ

of California, Mr. LANTOS, and Ms. WATSON) 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 23055 Sherman Way in West Hills, California, 

as the ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. EVAN ASA ASHCRAFT POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 23055 Sherman Way in West 

6 Hills, California, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•HR 5147 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Evan Asa Ashcraft 

3 Post Office Building.

Æ
#### The Model Mill Company *et al. v.*McEver *et al.*

1. The issue being whether a bill of sale from a mercantile firm to a creditor was executed and delivered upon a *bona fide*contract of absolute sale, or upon a secret agreement that this creditor, out of the proceeds of the property conveyed, was to pay a debt due another creditor of the firm ; and there being both parol and documentary evidence bearing directly upon this issue, there was no error in refusing to charge a written request which limited the jury, in determining the question involved, to a consideration of the bill of sale and the parol evidence explanatory of the same.

*2.*There was evidence sufficient to warrant the verdict.

March 25, 1895.

Brought forward from the last term. Code, §1271(a-c).

Equitable petition. Before Judge Wellborn. Hall ¡superior court. July term, 1894.

George K. Looper and Dean & Hobbs, for plaintiffs.

Prior & Thompson, W. S. Pickrell and W. L. Teleord, for defendants.

■Simmons, Chief Justice.

1. The only grounds of the motion for a new trial were, that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and that the court erred in refusing to give in charge to the jury the following written request:

> *702“If it appeal’s from the instrument of writing executed by a debtor insolvent at the time of the transaction, and from the parol evidence explanatory thereof, that personal property consisting of a stock of goods, notes, accounts, fixtures, mule and wagon, was delivered to a creditor, not on a contract of absolute sale to him, but with the understanding that he was to pay over to another creditor a part of the property or a part of its proceeds and retain the balance on a debt due him, the transaction was an assignment for the benefit of creditors; and it not being made with the inventory and schedule required by statute, the same was void.”

This, request is substantially in the language of this court in the case of *Johnson*v. *Adams,*92 *Ga.*551, and is correct in the abstract; but under the facts of this case the court could properly decline to give it in charge, inasmuch as it limited the jury, in passing upon the question of whether the “instrument in writing” referred to was delivered on a *bona fide*contract of absolute sale or not, to a consideration of the instrument itself and the parol evidence explanatory thereof, when there was other evidence, both parol and documentary, bearing upon that issue.

2. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding as they did, and the trial judge having approved the verdict, this court will not set it aside.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Case 2:10-cv-06740-FSH Document 2 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL -MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL -MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL -MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL -MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL -MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 10
#### Ravi Thakur, Appellant, v Sarita K. Thakur, Respondent.

[855 NYS2d 183]

By order to show cause dated March 28, 2006 the defendant sought, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of divorce on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by the plaintiff *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Specifically, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff knowingly misled her into signing an affidavit which averred that the plaintiff was the legal custodian of the parties’ child so that the plaintiff would be awarded custody of the child when the divorce was finalized. A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment of divorce has the burden of establishing, by admissible evidence, the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the plaintiffs part sufficient to entitle him or her to vacatur *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; *Mohrmann v Lynch-Mohrmann,*24 AD3d 735 [2005]; *Badgett v*
      *862
      *Badgett,*2 AD3d 379 [2003]; *Bergen v Bergen,*299 AD2d 308 [2002]; *Cofresi v Cofresi,*198 AD2d 321 [1993]). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff fraudulently procured the judgment of divorce. We find no basis to disturb that determination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment of divorce. Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
____________________________________

: 

LUTHER L. PRICE, et al., : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

: DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiffs, :

: Hon. Claire C. Cecchi

-vs- : Civil Action No. 11-4030 (CCC)

:

CITY OF JERSEY CITY, et al., :

: ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Defendants. :

____________________________________: 

IT IS on this 20 day of November, 2013 th

ORDERED that there shall be an in-person status/settlement conference before the

Undersigned on Friday, December 6, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse,

1 Federal Square, Fourth Floor, Room 457, Newark, New Jersey. In addition to and wholly

separate from counsel, individual clients are required to attend the conference in person.

Failure to attend may result in the imposition of sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37. There shall

be no adjournments absent extraordinary circumstances. 

 /s/ Mark Falk 

MARK FALK

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-04030-CCC-MF Document 60 Filed 11/20/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 465
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5176 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5176

  To amend the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 
 1992 to rename the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge as 
              the Pat Schroeder National Wildlife Refuge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2004

 Ms. DeGette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 
 1992 to rename the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge as 
              the Pat Schroeder National Wildlife Refuge.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PAT SCHROEDER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    (a) Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge.--The Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
402; 16 U.S.C. 668dd note) is amended--
            (1) in section 1(b)(2), by striking ``Rocky Mountain 
        Arsenal'' and inserting ``Pat Schroeder''; and
            (2) in section 4--
                    (A) in the heading, by striking ``rocky mountain 
                arsenal'' and inserting ``pat schroeder''; and
                    (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``Rocky Mountain 
                Arsenal'' and inserting ``Pat Schroeder''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge'' shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Pat Schroeder National Wildlife Refuge''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:11-cv-03565-SDW-MCA Document 10 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cv-03565-SDW-MCA Document 10 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 37
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3895

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Timothy James Dowdle, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 22, 2000

Filed: June 30, 2000

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy James Dowdle was in state custody on commercial burglary and theft

of property charges when he was indicted on a federal possession of stolen mail charge.

Dowdle pleaded guilty to the federal charge and was sentenced to twenty-four months

imprisonment and three years supervised release. After the federal sentencing, Dowdle

pleaded guilty to the state charges and was sentenced to five years to run concurrently

with the federal sentence. The state judge made a notation on Dowdle's criminal

docket sheet that the state relinquished custody of Dowdle to the federal Bureau of

Prisons (BOP). When the BOP refused to accept custody, Dowdle filed a motion
-2-

asking the federal district court to determine whether he was in federal or state custody.

The district court found that the state judge's notation on Dowdle's docket sheet validly

relinquished the state's custody and that the BOP had primary custody of Dowdle for

the duration of his federal sentence. The Government appeals, arguing the state judge

lacked authority to relinquish state jurisdiction over Dowdle. We agree. As the

sovereign that first arrested Dowdle, the state had primary jurisdiction which it could

"elect under the doctrine of comity to relinquish [] to [the United States]," but the

"discretionary election is an executive, and not a judicial, function." United States v.

Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 685 (9th Cir. 1980); accord Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254,

261-62 (1922). Because the state's jurisdiction was relinquished by a state judge,

rather than the prosecutor or a representative of the state executive branch, the

relinquishment was ineffective and Dowdle's status as a state prisoner was unchanged.

See Ponzi, 258 U.S. at 261-62 (in federal system, power and discretion to practice

comity vested in Attorney General); Del Guzzi v. United States, 980 F.2d 1269, 1270

(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (state sentencing judge's authority limited to sending

defendant to state prison); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (1994) (federal Bureau of Prisons may

transfer federal prisoner to state for state prosecution if "transfer has been requested by

the Governor or other executive authority of the State"). We thus reverse the order of

the district court directing Dowdle into the custody of the BOP.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 16   Filed 09/28/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 35

Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 16   Filed 09/28/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 36
THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, PC 

54 Main Street 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

(201) 845-3232 

(201) 845-3777 - facsimile 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, Ltd. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., a German 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN DOES 1-X (such persons being 

presently unknown), 

 Defendants. 

 

Civ. Action. No. 2:11-cv-03621(CCC)(JAD) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

AS TO IP ADDRESS 174.58.2.185 ONLY

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., by its undersigned attorney, hereby voluntarily 

dismisses, without prejudice, the above-captioned matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) as 

to the defendant identified by Internet Protocol address 174.58.2.185 ONLY. No answer or 

motion for summary judgment has been served in this action by this defendant. 

DATED: November 4, 2011 THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 By: 

 Jay R. McDaniel, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, Ltd.

DATED: 

 _________________________________________ 

 Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC -JAD Document 105 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 904
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel. Review R25s.
    Date: August 6, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental & 
Craniofacial Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 672, MSC 4878, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-4878. 301-594-4809. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761b17040f291d131a1a0f36181f1e58111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660b07141f390d030a0a1f26080f0e48010910">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16102 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 10 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 10 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 41
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1



       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:

     1.   I, William Bruce Hicks, am the Group Managing Director of SUNDAY
          Communications Limited (the "Company").

     2.   To the best of my knowledge:

          (A)  The Company's Form 20-F accompanying this Certification, in the
          form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
          fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); and

          (B)  The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.

Dated: June 30, 2004


                                                  By: /s/ WILLIAM BRUCE HICKS
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  William Bruce Hicks
                                                  Title: Group Managing Director


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED AND WILL
BE RETAINED BY SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION IS BEING FURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 21, 2003 IN RELEASE
NO. 33-8212, THIS CERTIFICATION WILL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" FOR PURPOSES OF
SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITY OF THAT SECTION.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended January 31, 2006 (the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2006 |  | /s/ Chris L. Koliopoulos             
|                     |  | Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D.          
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ford *v.*The State.

Simmons, J. — As the whole case turned upon the credibility of the witnesses, there was no error in denying a new trial.

October 8, 1894.

Accusation of gaming. Before Judge Westmoreland. Criminal court of Atlanta. July term, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*502F. E. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

L. W. Thomas, solicitor, *confra.*
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 89
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 90
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 91
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 92
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 93
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 94
Case 2:11-cv-00478-DMC-JAD Document 6 Filed 06/01/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 95