alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7282

WARREN H. COX,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-97-191-5-BR2)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren H. Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Cox v. Freeman, No. CA-97-191-5-BR2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22,

1997). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

: Criminal No. 11-339 (FSH)

v. :

: ORDER

RONALD HARRIS, JR. :

:

Defendant. :

_______________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court upon letter received August 7, 2012 from

defendant Ronald Harris, Jr., through his counsel Alan Bowman, Esq., requesting that the selfsurrender date of August 14, 2012 be extended to September 7, 2012; and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 8 day of August, 2012, th

ORDERED that the defendant’s request to extend the self-surrender date to September 7,

2012 is hereby GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this District

no later than 12:00p.m. on September 7, 2012; it is further 

ORDERED that no further extensions will be granted; it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court provide certified copies of this Order to the U.S. Marshal

Service and U.S. Probation forthwith. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00339-JMV Document 50 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 149
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,617 8,296 4,585 3,959 3,926 3,371 1,106 966

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 4,878 4,063 2,839 2,361 1,899 1,570 140 132

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,007 974 583 563 367 362 57 50

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,871 3,089 2,255 1,798 1,533 1,208 83 83

Permanent job losers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,812 2,178 1,617 1,240 1,147 888 48 50

Persons who completed temporary jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,059 910 638 558 386 320 35 32

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 819 392 379 388 389 44 51

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,829 2,535 1,109 1,014 1,393 1,220 327 301

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,086 879 245 206 245 192 595 481

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 50.7 49.0 61.9 59.6 48.4 46.6 12.7 13.7

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.7 12.7 14.2 9.3 10.7 5.1 5.2

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 37.2 49.2 45.4 39.0 35.8 7.5 8.5

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 9.9 8.5 9.6 9.9 11.6 3.9 5.3

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 30.6 24.2 25.6 35.5 36.2 29.6 31.2

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 10.6 5.3 5.2 6.2 5.7 53.8 49.8

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 3.1 2.6 3.5 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.3

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.7 5.8 5.3

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 10.5 8.4

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
Exhibit 32


                           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 The Children's Internet, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A  for  the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Sholeh Hamedani, Chief Executive Officer, President,  and  Chief
Financial Officer  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:

   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/ SHOLEH HAMEDANI
--------------------------------
Sholeh Hamedani,
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
November 21, 2003
#### Bell *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J. — 1. The charge complained of being a lengthy extract from the general charge of the court, containing several distinct propositions, most if not all of which were correct, and no error being specified or pointed out, no proper assignment of error for adjudication by this court is presented.

2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict.

November 12,1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*499Indictment for murder. Before Judge Harris. Meriwether superior coui't.. August term, 1894.

McLaughlin & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and T. A. Atkinson, solicitor-general, *contra.*
EXHIBIT 10.27


 



SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT







This SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of June 20, 2012 by and between Higher One, Inc. ("Higher One") and Cole Taylor Bank ("Bank").







WHEREAS, Higher One and Bank are parties to that certain Deposit Processing Services Agreement dated as of March 29, 2012 (the "Deposit Processing Services Agreement"); and







WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the terms of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment; and







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:







1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions indicated in the Deposit Processing Services Agreement.







2.  Section 2.11 of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:







2.11  Joint Oversight Policies. The parties shall us best efforts and work together in good faith to reach an agreement on the terms of the Joint Oversight Policies on, or prior to, May 3, 2012, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Parties; provided, that the Parties hereby further agree to finalize the terms of an execute: (a) the Joint Oversight Policies covering (i) financials and (ii) IT controls on, or prior to, June 20, 2012 and (b) any remaining Joint Oversight Policies not yet completed on, or prior to, May 3, 2012, including but not limited to (i) business continuity, (ii) escheatment and (iii) annual due diligence by Bank on, or prior to, July 27, 2012. Furthermore, the Parties shall draft, finalize and execute a transition agreement addressing each Party's responsibilities in conjunction with the future termination of this Agreement and Depositor Program on, or prior to, July 27, 2012.







2.  This Amendment may not be amended, waived or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of each party hereto.







3.  Except as specifically amended and modified hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to its conflict of laws rules.







4.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.












COLE TAYLOR BANK







By: /s/ Randall T. Conte


Its: CFO












HIGHER ONE, INC.







By: /s/ Mark Volchek


Its: CFO
# cpsaat41
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

February 05, 2015

Hon. Jim Vollers

Attorney At Law

2201 Westover Road

Austin, TX 78703

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Keith S. Weiser

Attorney At Law

P. O. Box 1093

Victoria, TX 77902-1093

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Robert E. Bell

District Attorney

115 W. Main Street, Rm. 205

Edna, TX 77957

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00526-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-5-9030

Style: Herman Lee Kindred v. The State of Texas

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: State Prosecuting Attorney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

24th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Sharon Mathis, Jackson County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Exhibit 32.2



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 October 31,
2004 (the Report), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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: December 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Brian C. James     
|                        |  | Brian C. James         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
V.

I)ANIEL M. FURESZ

lion. Peter (1. Sheridan

ORDER

Whereas this Court denied Defendant Daniel M. Fureszs pro se motion for bail (ECF No.

28.). on February 22, 2011: and

Whereas, the Court inadvertently ordered on February 24, 2011 (ECF No.35.) that such

motion was rendered moot by Mr. Furesz’s entrance of a guilty plea on February 24. 2011:

IT IS on this 10th day of March 2011, ORDERED that paragraph two ofthe Court’s Order,

dated February 24. 2011 (ECF No. 35.) is amended to read as follows:

“IT IS on this 24th day of February 2011. ORI)ERED that the outstanding motions on the

docket are hereby moot. (ECF Nos. 26. 27, and 29.)”

ki

Lr1

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

Iarch 10. 2011
Order entered January 4 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01470 - CV HEALTHSOUTH REHABILI TATION HOSPITAL OF R ICHARDSON, LLC, Appellant V. JOSEPH RICH, AS NEX T FRIEND FOR JESSE M AE RICH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 18 - 00480



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief . We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019

. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17115]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11787 and <greek-i>11788]


Arkansas Disaster Number AR-00032

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas 
(FEMA-1845-DR), dated 06/16/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 04/27/2009 through 05/23/2009.
    Effective Date: 05/23/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/17/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/16/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Arkansas, dated 06/16/2009, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 04/27/2009 and continuing through 
05/23/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-17115 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 2:11-cr-00341-SDW Document 21 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cr-00341-SDW Document 21 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 41
#### Sydney Wosbelly LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73658.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Sydney Wosbelly Lopez-Gonzalez, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.

OIL, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, DOJ-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 **

Sydney Wosbelly Lopez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications 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 questions of law. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lopez-Gonzalez failed to establish that the one death threat he suffered rose to the level of past persecution. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, generally do not constitute past persecution). Thus, contrary to Lop ez-Gon-zalez’s contention, he is not entitled to a presumption of future fear. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lopez-Gonzalez does not have a well-founded fear of persecution because he failed to demonstrate that he could not relocate within Guatemala to avoid harm. *See Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder,*641 F.3d 333, 339 (9th Cir.2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the petitioner to show that relocation would be unreasonable). Accordingly, Lopez-Gonzalez’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lopez-Gonzalez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez-Gonzalez was not eligible for CAT relief because he did not establish a likelihood of torture if he returns to Guatemala. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1068.

We deny Lopez-Gonzalez’s request for humanitarian and/or equitable relief. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 *649(9th Cir.2010) (this court’s review is limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA). We also deny his request for remand to the Executive Office of Immigration Review so that it may consider whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion. We express no opinion as to Lopez-Gonzalez’s entitlement to such relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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



 Exhibit 10.24 
 Compensatory Arrangements with Non-Management Directors 
  

			
	Annual Retainer	  	$50,000
		
	Additional Annual Retainer for Audit Committee Chair	  	$10,000
		
	Additional Annual Retainer for Other Committee Chairs	  	$7,500
		
	Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board	  	$150,000
		
	Board Meeting Attendance Fees	  	$750 per meeting (applicable to TECO Energy, Inc. and Tampa Electric Company Board meetings)
		
	Committee Meeting Attendance Fees	  	$1,500 per meeting
		
	Restricted Stock	  	Annual grant of 3,000 shares, which vest in one installment on the first anniversary of the date of grant

 TECO Energy, Inc. also pays for or reimburses directors for their meeting-related expenses.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

MARK SOTELO,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00168-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s letter to the court dated March 25, 

2022, which has been construed as a motion to dismiss the original proceeding, and concludes that 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the petition 

for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 240-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 14828
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 240-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 14829
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 240-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 14830
#### In the Matter of Zhour Hijri, Respondent, v Nasser Fargaly, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 190]

“Where the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its factual determinations are afforded great weight on appeal” *(Matter of Spillman v Spillman,*40 AD3d 770, 770 [2007]; see *Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins,*47 AD3d 823 [2008]). Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination, based upon a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the husband violated the “stay away” provision of the previously-issued order of protection by following his wife on the Taconic State Parkway, pulling alongside her vehicle, sound*738ing the horn and waving, and then pulling in front of her vehicle and speeding away *(see generally Matter of Wilkins v Wilkins,*47 AD3d 823 [2008]; *Matter of Spillman v Spillman,*40 AD3d at 770; *Matter of Tina T. v Steven U.,*243 AD2d 863, 864 [1997]).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 11
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 12
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 13
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 14
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 15
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 16
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 17
Case 3:11-cr-00482-JAP Document 4 Filed 07/14/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 18