alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S05Y1528, S05Y1529.

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARCELO ANTONIO ESTRADA (two cases).

(619 SE2d 606)

Decided September 19, 2005.

Per curiam.

These two disciplinary matters are before the Court on the Investigative Panel’s Notice of Discipline seeking disbarment of Marcelo Antonio Estrada for violations of Rules 1.3,1.4 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum penalty for these violations is disbarment.

Two of Estrada’s clients filed grievances against him after he abandoned their cases. Estrada had agreed to represent each client in an immigration matter. However, he failed to file documents with the Immigration and Naturalization Service on behalf of one client, and he failed to appear as directed for an asylum hearing on behalf of the other client. Estrada further failed to communicate with either client. Estrada acknowledged service of the Notice of Investigation in both cases, but did not file a sworn written response as instructed. He provided only a P.O. Box to the State Bar, failed to acknowledge service of the Notice of Discipline that was directed to the P.O. Box, and was served by publication. Rule 4-203.1. He has not filed a Notice of Rejection in either case and, therefore, he is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline as may be determined by this Court. Rule 4-208.1. He is under interim suspension in both cases and has two additional formal complaints filed against him in State Bar Docket Nos. 4829 and 4830.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the appropriate discipline is disbarment. Accordingly, the name of Marcelo Antonio Estrada is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Estrada is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*663
      *William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Rebecca A. Hall, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 27 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 27 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 27 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 27 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 27 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 27 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 27 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 27 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 27 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 27 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 27 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 27 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 13 of 27 PageID: 31
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 14 of 27 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 15 of 27 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 16 of 27 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 17 of 27 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 18 of 27 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 19 of 27 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 20 of 27 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 21 of 27 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 22 of 27 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 23 of 27 PageID: 41
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 24 of 27 PageID: 42
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 25 of 27 PageID: 43
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 26 of 27 PageID: 44
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 11 Filed 02/03/11 Page 27 of 27 PageID: 45
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 Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on
Form 10-KSB/A  (Amendment  No.1) for the year ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Robert Steele,
Chief Executive 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 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.

Date:  July 15, 2005
                               /S/ ROBERT STEELE
                               -------------------------------
                               Robert Steele,
                               Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2014

By ECF

The Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

United States District Judge

Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse

Newark, New Jersey 07101

Re: United States v. Andrew Auernheimer, Crim. No. 11-470 (SDW)

Dear Judge Wigenton:

The Government consents to the dismissal of the Superseding Indictment

in. this case without prejudice and to the lifting of all conditions of release

presently imposed upon defendant Andrew Aurenheimer. Consenting to thisdismissal does not preclude the Government from continuing this prosecutionin another venue. See, United States v. Brennan, 183 F.3d 139, 149-5 1

(2d Cir. 1999> (post-conviction reversal for improper venue; indictment

“dismissed without prejudice” with guidance to consider before undertaking

new prosecution “in a district where venue could properly he laid”); Henry v.

Burgess, 799 F.2d 661, 662 (11th Cir. 1986) (no double jeopardy violation toretry a defendant whose conviction is reversed for improper venue).

Thank you for your consideration,

Respectfully submitted,

By: Gurbir S. GrwaI

Assistant U.S. Attorney

So

this

Paul J. Fishman

United Stat!s Al

ECF)

Pre-trial Services Officer (by e-mail)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J UA NA DE L E ON - B OR AY O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72723 A ge nc yN o. A 027- 211- 797 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. JuanaD e L e on- B or ay o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n de port a t i on proceedi ng s und erse ct i on 20 3(c) of the N i cara gu an A dj ustm entand C entra l 

# FI LED JU L 20 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72723 2 A m e r ic an R e lie f

A c t ( “N A C A R A ” ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, So c o p - G o n z a lezv . I

NS , 272 F . 3d 1176, 1187 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , a nd w e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g en cyd idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g D e L eo n -B o ra yo ’s m ot i on t o r e ope n a s unt i m e l yw he r e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d a f t e rthe S e pt e m be r11, 1 9 9 8 , f ilin g d e a d lin e , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .4 3 (e )( 1 ), an dD e L eo n -B o ra yo ’s i gnor anc e of

the de a dl i ne a nd he rs t a tus be f or e the S e pt e m be r11, 1998, de a dl i ne w a s n o t c au s e db yc ir c u m s tan c e s b e y o n dh e rc o n tr o l, se e Socop -G on zalez , 272 F .3 da t 1 1 9 3 ( e q u itab le to llin g a v a ilab le in c ir c u m s tan c e s b e y o n da“g ar d e n v ar ie ty c la im o f e x c u s ab le n e g le c t.” ) ; cf . A lbi l lo-D e L eon v. G on zales , 410 F . 3d 1090, 1099 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( N A C A R A de a dl i ne t ol l e d w he r e pe t i t i one rm i s s e d de a dl i ne because of r epre se nt at i ve’ s dec ept i on ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
UNAUDITED INFORMATION FOR 2ND QUARTER 10-Q THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF, AND FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED, JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     1,642
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                       555
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,429
<PP&E>                                          16,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,627
<BONDS>                                          1,487
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,769
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,988
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,854)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### FRENCH v. ZALSTEM-ZALESSKY et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 14, 1940.

Simpson, Brady & Noonan, of New York City, for plaintiff. .

Christensen & Eberlein, of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

The defendant moves pursuant to Rule 30(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order terminating or limiting the examination of the Standard Accident Insurance Company, the defendant’s insurance carrier.

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from alleged negligence on the part of the defendants in the operation of a motor vehicle.

While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed, it frequently happens that the court is called upon to determine how far a party may go *509in the examination of a witness as to “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved,” rule 26, and limitations have been made, as the rule provides for. Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Atchinson, D. C., 30 F.Supp. 936; Welty v. Clute, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 2; Thomas French & Sons, Ltd., v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co., D. C., 30 F.Supp. 903; McCarthy v. Palmer, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 585; Floridin Company v. Attapulgus Clay Company, D. C., 26 F.Supp. 968; Rose Silk Mills v. Insurance Company of North America, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 504; Bennett v. Waterman S. S. Corp., D. C., 29 F.Supp. 506; Kenealy v. Texas Company, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 502; Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co., D. C., 29 F.Supp. 506; Seals v. Capital Transit Company, D. C., 1 F.R.D. 133; Price v. Levitt, D. C., 29 F.Supp. 164; Shelton v. United States., D. C., 27 F.Supp. 801; Benevento v. A. & P. Food Stores, Inc., D. C., 26 F.Supp. 424.

I have carefully read the deposition of the witness Stender, claims manager, whose examination appears to have been quite exhaustive. There are several instances in which he was unable to give the required information from memory, but stated he would look up the records and furnish it if he found it available. This he should do, but he will not be required to furnish statements taken from Mr. Buckley or Mr. Taylor, who are “blotter witnesses” and equally available to both sides.

 It is not the function of the defendant to make available to the plaintiff the result of its investigations in preparing for trial, nor in this case will the witness be required to produce the inter-office correspondence file. I confine my ruling, however, upon this point to this particular case lest it might become the practice to conceal information, which might otherwise be obtainable, in the inter-office correspondence file, on the supposition that it would thus not be subject to production.

As a matter of fact, so far as the record before me indicates, the examination of this particular witness was had pursuant to notice served under Rule 26 and the provisions of Rule 34 were not availed of by the plaintiff.

Motion granted to the extent indicated.

Settle order on notice unless agreed upon as to form.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

NICHOLAS FITZGERALD, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

-v.- 

GANN LAW BOOKS, INC., GANN LEGAL 

EDUCATION FOUNDATION, INC. AND 

MICHAEL PROTZEL,

Defendants. 

Civil Action 

11-CV-04287 (KM)(MCA) 

ORDER 

THIS MATTER having been presented to the Court on Notice of Motion of Plaintiff 

Nicholas Fitzgerald moved for an Order: (1) finally approving the Class Settlement; (2) 

approving the Class attorneys’ application for fees, costs and expenses, and (3) approving an 

incentive award for Plaintiff. 

And the Court having reviewed the written submissions of the parties, and the Court 

having heard oral argument on October 16, 2014, and for good cause shown; 

IT IS on this ____ day of ______________2014, 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED; and it is 

 FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) the Class Settlement is finally approved; (2) the Class 

attorneys are awarded ___________in attorney’s fees and ________ ___in costs and expenses; 

and (3) Plaintiff is granted an incentive award of ___________. 

 

_____________________________ 

 HON. KEVIN McNULTY, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-04287-KM-SCM Document 90-10 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2885
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



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Speaking Roses International, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


By
/s/ Dan Mumford
Dan Mumford,
Chief Financial Officer

May 23, 2005
**EXHIBIT
      21**




Airspan
      Significant Subsidiaries (1)




Airspan
      Communications Limited




Airspan
      Networks PTY Ltd (Australia) (Subsidiary of Airspan Communications
      Ltd)




Airspan
      Communications (Shanghai) Co. Ltd




P.T.
      Airspan Networks Indonesia




Airspan
      Networks (Israel) Ltd (Subsidiary of Airspan Communications Ltd)




Airspan
      Japan Kabushiki Kaisha




Airspan
      Networks (Finland) OY (Subsidiary of Airspan Communications Ltd)




Airspan
      Solutions Limited (Subsidiary of Airspan Communications Limited)




(1)  All
        subsidiaries are 100% owned unless otherwise indicated. The names of other
        subsidiaries have been omitted from the above list since considered in the
        aggregate, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary under Securities
        and Exchange Commission Regulation S-X, Rule 1-02(w).
# cpsaat08
Exhibit 32.1





EXTERRAN PARTNERS, L.P.


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 on Form 10-Q of Exterran Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ernie L. Danner, as Chief Executive Officer of Exterran GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership’s
general partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 Partnership.





/s/ ERNIE L. DANNER


Ernie L. Danner


Chief Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC


As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.


As General Partner of Exterran Partners, L.P.





August 6, 2009





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 the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Esther Salas
Crim. No, 11-464

CONTINUANCE ORDER

v.

AUGUSTUS EJERE 3

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 Augustus Ejere (by Ronald Hart, Esq.) 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(¢) (1), and as
the defendant has consented to an additional continuance, and for
good and sufficient cause shown,

Iv IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should
be continued for the following reasons:

1. Discovery made available in this case involves
large electronic files which may necessitate a lengthy review by
defense counsel; ;

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 Lt day of September 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that proceedings in the above-captioned
matter are continued from September 21, 2013 through November 21,
2013; and

IT IS ORDERED that the period from September 21, 2013
through November 21, 2013 shall be excludable in computing time

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

States Code, Section 3161 (h) (7). 5

HON. ESTHER’S:
United Stat strict Judge

OT i

Ronald Hart, Esq.
Counsel for Augustus Ejere

vagihhty Ff
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 898
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 899
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 900
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 901
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 902
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 903
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 904
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 905
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 906
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 907
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 908
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 909
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 910
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 911
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 912
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 913
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 914
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 915
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 916
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 917
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 53 Filed 04/01/13 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 918