alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



         In connection  with the Annual Report of Green Oaks  Concepts,  Ltd. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
L.  Hodges,  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


March 31, 2005


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
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.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      David
      F. Hostelley, President of Organetix, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      that:





(1)  the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2006
      (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
                May 1, 2007/s/
                David F. HostelleyDr.
                David F. HostelleyPresident
**Exhibit 32.3****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**          I, Jeffrey M. Rojek, Chief Financial Officer of GLG Partners, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 9, 2008                                                              /s/ Jeffrey M. Rojek   Jeffrey M. Rojek   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen R. Brunner, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President of Constellation Energy
Partners LLC, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Constellation Energy Partners LLC.



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen R. Brunner                                        
|Stephen R. Brunner                                            
|Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President

Date: November 7, 2008
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00581-CV

In the INTEREST OF J.R.L. III, a Child 

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29690

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 18, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the 

assessment of costs, we order costs of the appeal assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit10.27**

**SCIELE PHARMA, INC.**

 

**DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION FOR 2006SUMMARY SHEET**

 
| ANNUAL BOARD RETAINER                                |   | 2006   |   | $      | 30,000 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 30,000 |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| ANNUAL BOARD CHAIRMANSHIP  RETAINER                  |   | 2006   |   | $      | 30,000 |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 10,000 |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| ANNUAL COMMITTEE  CHAIRMANSHIP RETAINER              |   | 2006   |   | $      | 10,000 |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 15,000 |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| Nomination/Corporate  Governance Committee           |   | 2006   |   | $      | 5,000  |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 10,000 |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| Audit Committee                                      |   | 2006   |   | $      | 5,000  |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 10,000 |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| Compensation Committee                               |   | 2006   |   | $      | 5,000  |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 5,000  |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING  FEE (In Person Meeting) |   | 2006   |   | $      | 1,500  |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 2,000  |   |
|                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
| AUDIT COMMITTEE ACCOUNTING  EXPERT RETAINER          |   | 2006   |   | $      | 5,000  |   |
|                                                      |   | 2007   |   | $      | 10,000 |   |

 

In 2006, in addition to the base compensation, each director who wasnot a employee and not affiliated with a greater than 10% stockholder wasgranted 5,000 stock options and 2,500 restricted shares.

----
Case 3:10-cv-03230-FLW-LHG Document 19 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 84Case 3:10-cv-03230-FLW-LHG Document 19 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 85
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, Respondent, CHRISTINA ELIZABETH PALMER GERACI, Real Party in Interest. No. 12-73128D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00466-BENNLS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
MAR 04 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 Submitted February 7, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Progressive Choice Insurance Co. (“Progressive”) petitions for mandamus to vacate the district court’s order requiring Progressive to produce emails it claims are protected by attorney -client privilege. The magistrate judge held that Progressive waived its atto rney-client privilege under California law based on its prior disclosures. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s order. This court considers five factors in granting mandamus: (1) whether the petitioner has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5 ) whether the district court’s order raises new and important problems or issues of first impression. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977))
. “[T]he absence of the third factor, clear error, is dispositive.” Id . (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.3 v. U.S. Dist. Court , 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district did not clearly err in determining that Progressive waived its privilege under California law. Because th e district court’s interpretation finds support under current California case law, ma ndamus is inappropriate. Progressive cannot establish the necessary third factor, and so we deny the petition. Progressive’s motion for judicial notice is denied. DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Montinay Smith, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 470]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered March 29, 2006, convicting defendant upon his *1132plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. We decline, however, to address this issue inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).

Crew III, J.E, Carpinello, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 159
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 160
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 161
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 162
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 163
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 164
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 165
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 166
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 167
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 168
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 169
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 170
Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 14-3 Filed 10/24/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 171
Exhibit 10.9


                     Raw Material Purchase / Sales Contract

                                                                 Date: 2006-7-19
                                                           contract no.:20060711
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brand name     description   unit    quantity   Unit price      amount

-------------- ------------- ------- ---------- --------------- ----------------
Suppression
fluid                         ml      13.80      110000          1518000
-------------- ------------- ------- ---------- --------------- ----------------
Total amount                                                    RMB1518000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Term of quality guarantee:

2. Way of payment: prepaid.

3. Way of delivery and fees charged: supplier in charge.

4. The package is satisfied the standard.

5. The  quality  is  satisfied  the  standard,  attach  the  quality  inspection
   certificate.

6. Inspection of goods:

7. Validity of the contract :

8. Other arguments: by negotiation

9. The contract is valid at the time of signature and stamp.






Hainan Xinxin Biology & Hainan Helpson Medicine and Bio-Technology Co. Ltd.
905 A.2d 866

#### IN THE MATTER OF SALVATORE LARUSSA, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 11, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-084, concluding that SALVATORE LaRUSSA, JR., of VOORHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1992, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SALVATORE LaRUSSA, JR., is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Exhibit
10.2





AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT





This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”),
dated as of November 3, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), hereby amends the
Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2010 (the “Agreement”), by and between
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., 59 Maiden Lane, 6th floor,
New York, New York, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Michael J. Saxon,
an individual residing at 514 Brookstone Court, Copley, Ohio 44321
(Executive”).





WHEREAS,Executive and the
Company intend that the Profit Bonus provided for in the Agreement qualify for
the performance-based exception to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code.





NOW, THEREFORE,the parties
hereto agree as follows:





1.           Section
3(b) (Profit
Bonus) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting paragraph (ii) in
its entirety.





2.           All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in effect in accordance with
their terms.





AMTRUST
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.





By:
                        /s/
      Stephen Ungar
                        
                        /s/
      Michael J. SaxonStephen Ungar    
Secretary
                        
                        Michael
      J.
Saxon
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50686

Summary Calendar

LEMUEL AMON BOND, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

R. MILES, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CV-375-SS

__________________________________________

April 28, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lemuel Amon Bond, III (“Bond”), federal prisoner # 54995-079, appeals the denial without

prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which the di stri ct court construed as a

successive 28 U. S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Bond argues that

because neither of his prior § 2255 motions was considered on the merits, the § 2255

remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, and he is entitled to challenge

his sentence in a § 2241 habeas petition.

Jurisdiction over a § 2255 motion lies in the di st rict where the movant’s sentence was

imposed. S ee § 2255; Ojo v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.

, 106 F .3d 680, 683 (5th Ci r.2

1997). In Bond’s case, that is the Southern District of Texas. Accordingly, the district court did not

have jurisdiction to construe Bond’s § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion. S ee Ojo

, 106 F.3d at 683;

see also Solsona V. Warden, F.C.I. , 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987).

Additionally, Bond is not entitled to challenge his sentence in a § 2241 petition. Because

Bond failed to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his second § 2255 motion as successive, he has

failed to establish the ineffectiveness or inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy. S ee Kauf man v.

Wilkinson

, 237 F.2d 519, 520, n.1 (5th Cir. 1956); See Josey v. Humphrey , 210 F.2d 826, 827 (3d

Cir. 1954). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment should be affirmed on the ground that Bond

failed to state a claim for relief under § 2241. S ee Sojourner T v. Edwards

, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.

1992) (court of appeals may affirm district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record).

To the extent that Bond’s appeal seeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, Bond

is instructed that he may file a separate motion with this court requesting such authorization. S ee §

2255.

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 1 of 14 PageID: 8675

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 2 of 14 PageID: 8676

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 3 of 14 PageID: 8677

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 4 of 14 PageID: 8678

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 5 of 14 PageID: 8679

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 6 of 14 PageID: 8680

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 7 of 14 PageID: 8681

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 8 of 14 PageID: 8682

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 9 of 14 PageID: 8683

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 10 of 14 PageID: 8684

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 11 of 14 PageID: 8685

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 12 of 14 PageID: 8686

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 13 of 14 PageID: 8687

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB   Document 228   Filed 06/29/12   Page 14 of 14 PageID: 8688
RE: Case No. 15-0058 COA #: 12-14-00010-CV TC# STYLE:MARY HALL 

### v. RALPH & KACOO'S OF LUFKIN, TEXAS, D/B/AGREAT TEXAS FOODS CORP., D/B/ABRAZOS CATTLE CO. FILECOPY DATE: 1/22/2015 CV-00396-11-03


### Todaythe Supreme Court of Texas granted the 

### motion for extension of time to file petition for review under Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f) in the aboveMS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 

### 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702 -n o 

### > ,- a rn ~"l v^ 

### ^-X O

— 

### <<" o Z <AHr" 

### a o ( z 

### nq r~±iv »c * C, > 33
en



# TOF 

# ppeal \. on w 3>



### .-^C 

### mJ\ -""V

^r \

' •* r~
V. 3 (Unlawful Debt Collection Practices)

) PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP, 3

Defendant, 3

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

TO THE CLERK:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-captioned case has been

DISMISSED with prejudice.

_/si 1Amy L. Bennecoff

Amy L. Bennecoff, EsquireAttorney ID: AB0891Kimmel & Silverman, PC

1930 E. Mariton Pike, Suite Q29

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003Phone: 856-429-8334Fax: 856-216-7344Email: abennecoff(creditlaw. corn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 25, 2013

s0122

Order 

January 25, 2013

146027

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146027

COA: 311398

Oakland CC: 2012-009653-AR

SHAUN CLAYTON PENZIEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                       LION BIOSCIENCE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

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

        In connection with the Annual Report of LION bioscience
Aktiengesellschaft (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Martin Hollenhorst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2003
and results of operations of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2003.


Date: September 29, 2003
                                    /s/ Martin Hollenhorst
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:       Martin Hollenhorst,
                                    Title:      Chief Financial Officer
ORDER GRANTfNG PRO

ThC VICE ADMISSION OF

JILL IAN M. SEARLES

This matter having been opened to the Court by Hodgson Russ LLP, attorneys tbr

Defendant Michael F. Durante (Cathy Fleming, Esq. appearing) moving the admission pro hac

vice of Jillian M. Searles, Esq., and the United States having no objection to the application, and

for good cause shown:

IT IS on this day 2011

ORDERED that:

1) Jillian M. Searles, Esq. be permitted to appear pro hac vice except only an

attorney at law of this Court may file papers, enter appearances for parties, sign stipulations, or

sign and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders;

2) the applicant shall arrange with the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client

Protection for payment of the annual fee, for this year and for any year in which the out-of-state

attorney continues to represent a client in a matter pending in this Court in accordance with New

Jersey Court Rule I :28-2 and DN.J. L. Civ. R. 101 1, said fee to be deposited within 21 days of

the date of the entry of this Order;

V.

M1CIIAEL F. DURANTE, et al.

1)efendants.

O*)56I OOtJO 79535l
to the Clerk of the United States I)istrict Court for the District of New Jersey at the thilowing

address, for forwarding by the Clerk to the District Court:

United States District Court

District of New Jersey

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building

50 Walnut Street

Newark, N.J. 07102

Attention: Pro Hoc Vice A c/missions

4) the applicant shall be bound by the Local Rules of the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey.

Stanleyd Chesler, U.S,D.J.