alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





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 quarterly report of Mattmar Minerals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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, as amended;
  and





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





Dated:
      October 5, 2010/s/ Kirk M. WarshawKirk
      M. WarshawChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




A signed
original of this certification 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.
#### Anne Kiernan BEIRNE and Patrick Beirne, Plaintiffs, v. FITCH SANITARIUM, Inc., New York Medical College, Flower and Fifth Avenue Hospitals, Dr. J. P. McLaughlin, Dr. Louis W. Maraventano and Dr. Robert S. Bickley, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York, Civil Division.

Jan. 26, 1957.

Krause, Hirsch & Heilpern, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Casper B. Ughetta, New York City, for defendant Fitch Sanitarium.

Samuel B. Lemkin, New York City, for defendant Dr. Maraventano.

Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City, for defendant New York Medical College.

*94Garbarini & Kroll, New York City, for defendant Dr. Bickley.

WEINFELD, District Justice.

 The purpose of the pre-trialdeposition-diseovery procedure is for the discovery of facts relevant to the subject matter of the action, or to unearth leads as to where evidence may be located. Kaiser-Frazer Corp. v. Otis & Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 50. While questions which to a degree call for an expression of opinion may, where they are relevant to the issues, be permitted, Gagen v. Northam Warren Corp., D.C. S.D.N.Y., 15 F.R.D. 44, the rules were not intended to permit a party to question his adversary as an expert witness by putting a series of hypothetical questions based upon an assumed state of facts as to which there is no proof and as to which the adverse party’s counsel has had no opportunity to cross examine. The nature of the hypothetical questions reveals their vice. Typical is the lead question to the entire series objected to, which is as follows:

“Q. I am going to ask you to assume certain facts. Take it for granted that, for the purpose of the questions I am going to ask you, such a condition existed whether it did or not, in your mind or otherwise, exist. Assuming these facts I am going to give you, I will ask you certain questions and see if you and I can agree on something. * * *”

This type of inquiry does not lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the issues and would serve no substantial purpose. Cf. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶[ 33.17 (2d ed. 1950). Indeed, a fair reading of the questions indicates that their essential purpose is not to ascertain evidence but rather to impeach the adverse party.

The questions propounded may be put to the defendant if the unestablished hypothetical aspects are omitted and the questions are confined to acts performed or not performed by the defendant, or to any fact or circumstance relating to the plaintiff’s hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment. As so amended the questions may be allowed.

Settle order on notice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Katharine S. Hayden 

Crim. No. 11-554 

v. 

CONTINUANCE ORDER 

GREGORY CICCONE 

This matter having come before the Court on the joint 

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

District of New Jersey (by Joseph Mack, Assistant U.S. Attorney), 

and defendant Gregory Ciccone (by K. Anthony Thomas, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender) for an order granting a continuance of 

the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant 

being aware that he has a right to have the matter brought to 

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a 

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United 

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has 

consented to an additional continuance, and for good and 

sufficient cause shown, 

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should 

be continued for the following reasons: 

1. Discovery made available in this case involves a 

large volume of paper files which may necessitate a lengthy 

review by defense counsel; 

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 21 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 79
2. Taking into account the exercise of diligence, 

therefore, the facts of this case require that defense counsel be 

permitted a reasonable amount of additional time for effective 

preparation in this matter; and 

3. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and 

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time 

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render trial of this 

matter unnecessary; and 

4. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, 

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

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial. 

WHEREFORE, on this day of June 2012, 

IT IS ORDERED that proceedings in the above-captioned 

matter are continued from May 30, 2012 through September 10, 

2012; and 

IT IS ORDERED that the period from May 30, 2012 through 

September 10, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under 

the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, pursuant to Title 18, United States 

Code, Section 3161 (h) (7). 

HON. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 21 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 80
Name of Offender Jose Rivera Cr 2 1 1-MJ-8 131

PACTS #: 61703

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: Honorable Madeline Cox-Arleo, United States Magistrate Judge

Date of Original Sentence: 02/09/12

Original Offense: Prohibited Loans to Officers or Employees

Original Sentence 3 years probation $25 special assessment and $3,473 54 in restitution Specialconditions: 1) no new debt or additional lines of credit, and, 2) refrain from holding, seeking, or obtaining

employment or elected position within a union or labor organization while on probation.

Type of Supervision: Probation Date Supervision Commenced: 02/09/12

NONCOMPLIANCE SUMMARY

The offender has not complied with the following condition(s) ofsupervision:

Violation Number Nature of NoncomDliance

1. The offender has failed to make payments towards the restitution obligation

since the term of probation commenced. There is an outstanding restitution

balance of $3,473.54.

U.S. Probation Officer Action:

The U.S. Probation Office recommends presentation ofthis document to the offender as a formal judicial

written reprimand from the Court. The offender will be subject to a full financial investigation and will be

instructed to commence making payments immediately based upon his ability to pay The probation office

will continue to closely monitor his progress and will report any further noncompliance.

Respectfully submitted,

By: Adriana Garcia O’Hara

,/ / ..— / U S Probation Officer ‘

‘ Date 12/03/12

Maureen Kelly

c ft I ii / A

/ /

( 1F; (Z
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 395
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 396
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 397
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 398
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 399
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 400
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 401
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 402
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 403
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 404
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 405
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 406
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 407
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 408
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 409
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 410
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 411
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 412
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 413
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 414
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 415
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 416
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -MAH Document 24 Filed 10/24/11 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 417
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5205 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5205

 To extend the boundary of the Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2004

   Mr. Case introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the boundary of the Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park in the 
                            State of Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 
Boundary Extension Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. HAWAI`I VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY EXTENSION.

    The first section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781, 
chapter 530; 16 U.S.C. 391b) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``All of that certain parcel of land (being portion(s) of the 
land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent Grant Number 2791 to 
C. C. Harris; Royal Patent Number 6454, Land Commission Award Number 
9156, Apana 1 to Kualaala; Royal Patent Grant Number 2787, Apana 1 to 
W. C. Shipman; and all of Royal Patent Number 5335, Land Commission 
Award Number 10514 to Naohe; Royal Patent Number 5925, Land Commission 
Award Number 8771 to Kila; Royal Patent Number 6452, Land Commission 
Award Number 11028-B, Apana 1 and 2 to Samuela Kuula; Royal Patent 
Number 6083, Land Commission Award Number 10842, Apana 1 and 2 to Pau; 
Royal Patent Number 6622, Land Commission Award Number 8772, Apana 1 
and 2 to Kaaloa; Royal Patent Number 5434, Land Commission Award Number 
9157, Apana 1 and 2 to Keliikanakaole; Royal Patent Number (None), Land 
Commission Award Number 8110 to Hamohamo; Royal Patent Number 6475, 
Land Commission Award Number 9209 to Kemu) situate, lying and being at 
Kahuku, District of Ka'u, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, 
being a portion of PARCEL 2, bearing Tax Key designation (3) 9-2-001-
001 and containing an area of 655.544 acres, more or less.
    ``All of that certain parcel of land (being all of Apana 3 of Royal 
Patent Number 6452, Land Commission Award Number 11028-B to Samuela 
Kuula) situate, lying and being at Kiao, District of Kau, Island and 
County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, bearing Tax Key designation (3) 9-3-
005-012 and containing an area of 1.300 acres, more or less.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HOWITT et al. v. ST. JOHN.

Civ. No. 26732.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Nov. 10, 1949.

*609John M. Drain, Cleveland, Ohio, John H. Gately, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Williams, Reynolds, Murray & Deeg, Columbus, Ohio, Miller & Hornbeck, Cleveland, Ohio, Thos. K. M. Victory, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for personal and property injury arising out of defendant’s alleged negligence.

Defendant has filed motions to strike and to make the complaint more definite.

Defendant asks that several sections of the complaint be stricken because they state conclusions of law. If conclusions of law are relevant and raise issues, the mere fact that they may be conclusions of law does not require that they be stricken from the complaint. French v. French Paper Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 531.

Defendant also asks that the allegations in paragraph (1) beginning with the words “copies of which are attached” and ending with the words “fully set forth herein” be stricken because such allegations are evidentiary matters. These allegations have no place in the pleadings, violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a), 28 U.S.C.A. and are possibly prejudicial. Karen v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp., U.S.D.Ct.,N.Y., Clancy, J. The allegations will be stricken from the complaint.

Defendant’s motion to strike will be overruled except where otherwise indicated.

Defendant also moves that certain specifications of damages be made more definite. It is sufficient to say that the allegations relating to damages are not so vague that defendant cannot frame a responsive answer. The information desired may be obtained by recourse to the Rules of Discovery. Motion denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL TRIPO

Plaintiff, 

v.

Order of Dismissal

Civil Action No. 11-2050 (MAS)

ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL

CENTER, et. al. 

Defendants.

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

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 6th day of August , 2013 

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/Michael A. Shipp 

Michael A. Shipp, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-02050-MAS-DEA Document 51 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 687
Arnold B. Calmann (abc@saiber.com) 

Jeffrey Soos (js@saiber.com) 

Katherine A. Escanlar (kae@saiber.com) 

SAIBER LLC 

One Gateway Center, 10th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 

973-622-3333 

973-286-2465 (facsimile) 

Douglass C. Hochstetler (DHochstetler@KelleyDrye.com ) 

Constantine Koutsoubas (CKoutsoubas@KelleyDrye.com ) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

333 West Wacker Drive 

26thFloor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312-867-7070 

312-867-7096 (facsimile) 

Beth D. Jacob (BJacob@KelleyDrye.com ) 

Clifford Katz (CKatz@KelleyDrye.com ) 

Sung W. Kim (SuKim@KelleyDrye.com) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

101 Park Avenue 

Suite 1700 

New York, NY 10178 

212-808-7800 

212-808-7897 (facsimile) 

Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs 

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-3788-MAS-LHG 

Hon. Michael A. Shipp, U.S.D.J. 

Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. 

Document Filed Electronically 

OREXO AB, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and 

MYLAN INC., 

Defendants. 

{00736515.DOC) 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-MAS-LHG Document 74-1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 649
Constantine Koutsoubas 

2 

DECLARATION OF CONSTANTINE KOUTSOUBAS IN SUPPORT OF 

MYLAN'S MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 66) 

I, CONSTANTINE KOUTSOUBAS, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am a member of the State Bar of Illinois. I am admitted pro hac vice to 

practice before the Court in the present action. I am an attorney at Kelley Drye & Warren 

LLP, counsel to Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively 

"Defendants" or "Mylan"). 

2. I am submitting this Declaration based upon my personal knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

3. I submit this declaration in further support of Mylan's Motion to Seal selected 

portions of the parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement and exhibits 

thereto ("Confidential Documents"). 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a revised proposed Order granting Mylan's 

Motion to Seal (ECF No. 66). 

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an updated proposed redacted version of the 

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. 

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a chart which provides a line-by-line 

description of the nature of the information that Mylan seeks to seal. 

I declare under penalty that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of 

July, 2012: 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-MAS-LHG Document 74-1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 650
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of the Company
(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 14, 2008
    /s/ MARIAM E. MORRISMariam E. MorrisChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Case 2:11-cv-04183-ES-CLW Document 70 Filed 09/26/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 3819
Case 2:11-cv-04183-ES-CLW Document 70 Filed 09/26/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 3820
Case 2:11-cv-04183-ES-CLW Document 70 Filed 09/26/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 3821
Case 2:11-cv-04183-ES-CLW Document 70 Filed 09/26/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 3822
Case 2:11-cv-04183-ES-CLW Document 70 Filed 09/26/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 3823
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RANDALL ASSOCIATES, 

INC., et al.,

 Defendant.

Civil No. 11-2658-JBS-KMW

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

This Scheduling Order confirms the directives given to 

counsel during the Final Pretrial Conference on January 29, 2015; 

and the Court noting the following appearances: Kristofer Chiesa, 

Esquire, Philip Bock, Esquire, and Tod A. Lewis, Esquire, all

appearing on behalf of the plaintiff; and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, 

III, Esquire, appearing on behalf of the defendants; and for good 

cause shown:

IT IS this 29th day of January, 2016, hereby ORDERED:

1. The deposition of Mr. Kehoe shall be conducted no 

later than February 26, 2016.

2. Counsel shall submit a revised Proposed Joint Final 

Pretrial Order no later than March 4, 2016.

3. Any application for an extension of time beyond the 

deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned 

and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period 

sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all 

such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons 

necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV. 

P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the application. 

The schedule set herein will not be extended unless good cause is 

shown.

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 197 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8499
THE FAILURE OF A PARTY OR ATTORNEY TO OBEY THIS ORDER 

MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

16(f).

s/ Karen M. Williams 

KAREN M. WILLIAMS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 197 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8500
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KONINKIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 

N.V., 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 

v.

HUNT CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., AN 

ASSUMED TRADE NAME FOR CARIBE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-3684 (SRC)(CLW)

ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter came before the Court upon four motions: (1) the motion for summary 

judgment filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Koninkijke Philips Electronics N.V. 

(“Philips”) [Docket Entry 189]; (2) the motion for summary judgment filed by 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Hunt Control Systems, Inc. (“Hunt”) [Docket Entry 179]; (3) 

Hunt’s motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Michael Barone [Docket Entry 183]; 

and (4) Hunt’s motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Alex Simonson [Docket 

Entry 186]; and all motions having been opposed; and the Court having opted to rule on the 

papers submitted, and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78; 

and for the reasons expressed in the Opinion filed herewith; and good cause shown,

IT IS on this 29th day of June, 2016,

Case 2:11-cv-03684-SRC-CLW Document 215 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 10373
2

ORDERED that Philips’s motion for summary judgment [Docket Entry 189] is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), judgment is entered 

in favor of Philips on the issue of availability of monetary remedies for all Counts in Hunt’s 

Counterclaim, as discussed in the Opinion filed herewith [Docket Entry 7]; and it is further

ORDERED that the remainder of the summary judgment motion filed by Philips is 

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Hunt’s motion for summary judgment [Docket Entry 179] be and 

hereby is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Hunt’s motion to exclude the testimony and expert report of Michael 

Barone [Docket Entry 183] is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Hunt’s motion to exclude the testimony and expert report of Alex 

Simonson [Docket Entry 186] is DENIED.

 s/ Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 29, 2016

Case 2:11-cv-03684-SRC-CLW Document 215 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 10374