alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): RFA-DP09-101SUPP09: Health Promotion and Disease 
Prevention Research Centers: Special Interest Project Competitive 
Supplements (SIPS) (U48 Panels A-M)

    This meeting is for the initial review of applications.
    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.

    Dates and Times:

July 29, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Closed.
July 30, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Closed.
July 31, 2009, 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Closed.
August 3, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Closed.
August 4, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Closed.

    Place: W Hotel, 3377 Peachtree Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30326, 
770-488-3024 and teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of the application received in response 
to ``RFA-DP09-101SUPP09: Health Promotion ans Disease Prevention 
ResearchCenters: Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements 
(SIPS) (U48Panels A-M).''
    For More Information Contact: Brenda Colley Gilbert, PhD, 
Director, Extramural Research Program Office, CCHP, 4770 Buford 
Highway, M/S K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341; 770-488-6295.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: July 8, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-16647 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP -TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 165
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP -TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 166
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP -TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 167
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP -TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 168
# United State s Court of Appeals For the F irst Circuit

No. 11-1764 UNITED STATES, Appellee,

v. ANTHONY JONES, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on December 2, 2011, is amended as follows:
On page 28, line 2, replace “21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(B)(iii)” with “21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii)”
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with the accompanying Annual Report of TS Electronics, Inc.
(formerly  named  Softstone  Inc.)  (the  "Company")  on Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-KSB  for  the  fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Keith Boyd,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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


                                        /s/  Keith  Boyd
Dated:  March 24, 2004                  ----------------------------------------
                                        Keith  Boyd
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-K  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.




                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(In thousands)

Category

Total Age Sex

2009 2010

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

Total not in the labor force .................................... 81,659 83,941 16,207 17,014 21,823 22,350 43,629 44,577 32,013 33,189 49,646 50,752

 Do not want a job now 1 ..................................... 75,765 77,882 14,263 14,990 19,199 19,659 42,303 43,233 29,234 30,309 46,531 47,573

 Want a job 1 ........................................................ 5,894 6,059 1,944 2,024 2,624 2,691 1,325 1,344 2,779 2,880 3,115 3,179

 Did not search for work in previous year .......... 3,075 2,948 960 968 1,241 1,189 874 791 1,344 1,279 1,731 1,669

 Searched for work in previous year 2 ............... 2,818 3,111 983 1,056 1,383 1,502 452 553 1,435 1,601 1,384 1,510

 Not available to work now ............................... 592 623 275 274 256 284 61 65 251 264 341 359

 Available to work now ..................................... 2,226 2,487 708 782 1,127 1,218 391 487 1,184 1,337 1,043 1,151

 Reason not currently looking:

 Discouragement over job prospects 3 ............ 778 1,173 200 291 427 595 151 287 485 731 293 442

 Reasons other than discouragement .......... 1,449 1,315 509 491 699 623 240 200 699 606 749 709

 Family responsibilities .............................. 209 286 38 49 131 171 41 66 50 83 159 203

 In school or training .................................. 306 350 234 262 65 81 7 7 163 191 144 158

 Ill health or disability ................................. 136 50 19 4 68 21 49 25 70 21 66 29

 Other 4 ...................................................... 798 629 219 176 435 350 144 102 417 311 381 318

1 Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job. 2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched

since the end of that job. 3 Includes believes no work available, could not find work, lacks

necessary schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and

other types of discrimination.

4 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks

for such reasons as child care and transportation problems, as well as a

small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

 NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the

release of January data.

51
#### In the Matter of Esther York, Petitioner, v Sidney F. Strauss, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 637]

*775The Supreme Court exceeded its authority in setting a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda in the action pending under index No. 11853/98 before holding the hearings directed to be held by the decision and order of this Court dated May 26, 1998, and the decision and order of this Court dated October 2, 2000, as amended March 2, 2001. While it is well settled that courts have an inherent power to control their calendar *(see Travelers Ins. Co. v New York Yankees,*102 AD2d 851 [1984]), the decision and order of this Court dated June 17, *7762002, deleted the provision of the Supreme Court’s order dated September 12, 2000, directing that the hearings be held at the time of the trial, and the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 21, 2003, directed that the hearings be held “forthwith.” Under these circumstances, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to have the hearings held before the Supreme Court set a deadline for the submission of posttrial memoranda *(see Matter of Law Offs. of Russell I. Marnell, P.C. v Blydenburgh,*26 AD3d 495 [2006]; *Matter of DeCintio v Cohalan,*18 AD3d 872 [2005]). Accordingly, the petition must be granted to the extent indicated, and otherwise denied.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Balkin and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bob HILL, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Marcos Leon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7746.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Bob Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bob Hill appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he contends that *Padilla v. Kentucky, 559*U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), should be retroactively applied to invalidate his guilty plea, given Hill’s claims that his attorney failed to advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea. We review the district court’s decision to deny the writ for *259abuse of discretion. *United States v. Akinsade,*686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.2012).

To obtain relief under such a writ, which is limited to “ ‘extraordinary’ cases presenting circumstances compelling its use ‘to achieve justice,’ ” *United States v. Denedo,*556 U.S. 904, 911, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009) (quoting *United States v. Morgan,*346 U.S. 502, 511, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954)), a petitioner must show that “(1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental character.” *Akinsade,*686 F.3d at 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In this case, Hill fails to demonstrate why the more usual route of raising his claims via a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion is not available to him. *See Akinsade,*686 F.3d at 252. Because Hill is still serving his term of supervised release, he is “in custody” for purposes of § 2255. *United States v. Pregent,*190 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir.1999). And the mere fact that we have held that *Padilla*cannot be retroactively applied to cases on collateral review, *see United States v. Mathur,*685 F.3d 396, 401-02 (4th Cir.2012), does not mean that a § 2255 motion is a form of relief that is “unavailable” to Hill. *See In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2000). As a result, Hill has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to coram nobis relief. *See Akinsade,*686 F.3d at 252.

Because we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court, we affirm its judgment. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.*
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


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





In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Frank Waung hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





Date: March 17, 2011
By:
/s/ Frank WaungFrank WaungChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)








This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1790

NORMAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL KANTOR, Secretary of Commerce,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CA-92-1799-K)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Maury S. Epner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motions (1) to compel; (2) for default judgment; (3) for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his complaint; and (4)

for judgment on the pleadings, and granting summary judgment to the

Defendant on his action filed under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 1985

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Because Taylor failed to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination under the ADEA, we affirm. See Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 233 (4th Cir. 1991). 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.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:11-cr-00191-JLL Document 2 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cr-00191-JLL Document 2 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Hamish Malkin, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Uranium
      Corporation for the quarter ended August 31, 2007 (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 American Uranium Corporation.                                                                    

Dated: October 19, 2007

|/s/ Hamish Malkin                    | 
|------------------------------------ | 
|Hamish Malkin,                       | 
|Chief Financial Officer and Director | 
|(Principal Financial Officer)        | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Uranium
Corporation and will be retained by American Uranium Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MEGAN BATYKEFER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 222 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Case 3:10-cr-00369-PGS Document 19 Filed 06/14/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 54
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7338** 

GREGORY LYNN GORDON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BRIAN CLAYTON HUNCKE, Detective; BRIAN WAYNE KEZIAH, Detective; EDDIE CATHEY, Sheriff; UNION COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S OFFICE ; MILES HELMS, Attorney , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00257

- RJC )

Submitted : January 12, 20 12 Decided: January 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gregory Lynn Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensbor o, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Lynn Gordon appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) action for failure to
state a claim after a 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (200 6 ) review

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Gordon v. Huncke , No. 3:11

- cv - 00257

- RJC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2011)

. We also deny all pend ing motions

. 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.

AFFIRMED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00146
- CV

J. G. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 22DFAM329703 , THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES , J U DGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
In this suit affecting the parent

- child relationship filed by t he Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) , appellant J.G. , the father of one of the two children involved i n t he suit , filed a notice of appe al from the district court ’ s de novo order affirming a ruling by the associate judge that return ed J.G. ’ s child to the child ’ s mother on a monitored basis , dismiss ed the Department as temporary managing conservator of that ch i ld , and continu ed the Depart ment as temporary managing conservator of the other child involved in the suit

. On May 23, 2023, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter to J.G. ’ s counsel informing h er that it
appear ed this Court lack ed jurisdiction over thi s m att er because the district court ’ s order does
not appear to be a final, appealable order and request ing that she file a response no l ater than
June 2, 2023

. As of today ’ s date, we have received no response from counsel

. In suits aff ecting the paren t

- chi ld relationship , this Cour t has appellate jurisdiction

over fi nal orders

. S ee Te x. Fam. Code § 109.002(b ). An order is final “ when it disposes of all2 issues and all parties in the record. ” In re R.R.K. , 590 S.W.3d 535 , 540 (Tex. 2019) (citing Lehma nn v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) )

. The order fr om which Father

see ks to appeal does not dispose of all issues and parties in th is sui t , which remained pending at the time of the order

. Consequently , the order is not final, and we lack juris diction to review it. See id . at 544; In re J.D. , 304 S.W.3d 522, 524

- 27 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2 009, no pet.); see also
J. C. v. Texas D ep ’ t of Fam

. & Protective Serv s
. , No. 03

- 22

- 00395

- CV , 2022 WL 3691683 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 26, 2022, no pet.) (m em. o p.) ; In re M.A.M. , No. 07

- 19

- 00173

- CV , 2019 WL 3486731 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo July 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. We dismiss t he appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justice s Triana and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Fil ed: June 9, 2023
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-79,644-01

EX P ARTE JOSE LUIS PINEDA, A KAJOSE LUIS PINEDA- HERNANDEZ , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 5141-A IN THE 109TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM WINK

LER COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim
. Ap p . 1 9 6 7). Applicant was convicted of ag gravated assault and se ntence d to two year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends, among other things, that trial co u n s el failed to advise him of the d ep o rt at i o n conseque nces of his guilty plea. Padilla v. K entuck y , 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The t ri al
co urt made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. Ba sed on its finding s and conclusions, we conclude that counsel’s advice was defic ient and that but for this advice , Appl icant would have2

insisted on a trial. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in cause number 5141 in the 109th District Court of Winkl er County is set aside. I f Applicant is in cust o dy , h e i s rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Winkl er County to answe r t he charg es as set out in the i ndictment. The trial court shall issue any
nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copie s of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ecti o n a l Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: J une 4, 2014 Do not publish
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 80-5 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1738
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 80-5 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1739
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1311
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID: 1312
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID: 1313
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID: 1314
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID: 1315
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID: 1316
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID: 1317
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID: 1318
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID: 1319
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID: 1320
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID: 1321
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID: 1322
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID: 1323
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID: 1324
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID: 1325
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 1326
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 174 Filed 08/20/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID: 1327