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 ASct of 2002

I, L. B. (Brad) Clarke, 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, 2005 (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: April 20, 2006

/s/ L. B. (Brad) Clarke
----------------------------------
L. B. (Brad) Clarke
President
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on July 22, 2009, 10 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 
8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
    (1) Executive Committee Reports.
    (2) For Discussion Only: Implications of SSA OIG QRE Findings on 
RRB Disability Processing and the Financial Interchange.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public. The person to 
contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, Secretary to the 
Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: July 13, 2009.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-17024 Filed 7-14-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 18 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 45
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 18 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 46
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 18 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC.,

Plaintiff

 V. SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

DAVID RANDALL ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant

CASE NUMBER: 1:11−CV−02658−JBS −KMW

 TO: (Name and address of Defendant):

 A lawsuit has been filed against you.

 Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) −− or 60 days if

you are the United States or a United States Agency, or an office or employee of the United States described in

Fed. R. civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) −− you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a

motion under rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the

plaintiff or plaintiff`s attorney, whose name and address are:

 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the

complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

WILLIAM T. WALSH

 CLERK

 Brian D Kemner

 (By) DEPUTY CLERK

ISSUED ON 2011−05−10 14:33:15.0, Clerk

USDC NJD

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 2 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 16
RETURN OF SERVICE

 Service of the Summons and complaint was made by me (1) DATE

 NAME OF SERVER (PRINT) TITLE

 Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service

Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served: _______________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and

discretion then residing therein.

Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:__________________________________

Returned unexecuted:_____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Other (specify) :_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES

 TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL

DECLARATION OF SERVER

 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information

contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.

Executed on ___________________ _______________________________________

Date Signature of Server

_______________________________________

Address of Server

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 2 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 17
ME1 13181131v.1

John E. Flaherty

Partner 

T. 973.639.7903 

F. 973.297.3971 

jflaherty@mccarter.com

McCarter & English, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, NJ 07102-4056 

T. 973.622.4444 

F. 973.624.7070 

www.mccarter.com 

BOSTON

HARTFORD 

NEW YORK 

NEWARK 

PHILADELPHIA 

STAMFORD 

WILMINGTON 

July 20, 2012 

VIA ECF 

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

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey 

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 

402 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08608 

Re: Orexo AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 

Civil Action No. 11-3788 (FLW) (LHG) 

Dear Judge Goodman: 

Our firm, along with our co-counsel Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 

represents Plaintiff Orexo AB in the above-referenced matter. We write on behalf of 

all parties to request a further extension of two weeks for all discovery deadlines, 

which has been agreed to by the Parties. The requested extension includes today’s 

deadline to complete discovery relating to claim construction, up to but not including 

the January 18, 2013 advice of counsel deadline. The January 18, 2013 date and all 

dates thereafter will remain as scheduled in this Court’s February 7, 2012 Pretrial 

Scheduling Order. 

The Parties enclose a proposed revised schedule as Exhibit A setting forth 

all affected dates for the Court’s consideration. If the Court finds this revised 

schedule acceptable, we ask that the Court “So Order” the revised dates as set forth 

in the attached schedule. 

Respectfully, 

s/John E. Flaherty 

John E. Flaherty 

cc: All Counsel (via email) 

So ordered on this ___ day of July, 2012: 

 ______________________________ 

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

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 69 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 626
Hon. Lois H. Goodman 

July 20, 2012 

Page 2

ME1 13181131v.1

Exhibit A

March 28, 2012 Order 

(Amending Feb. 7, 2012 

Pretrial Scheduling 

Order (D.I. 49)) 

Proposed Further 

Extensions to Pretrial 

Scheduling Order 

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 

completion of discovery 

relating to claim 

construction 

July 20, 2012 August 3, 2012 

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 

filing and service of 

Markman briefs 

August 6, 2012 August 20, 2012 

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 

meet and confer to propose 

schedule for Claim 

Construction Hearing 

August 17, 2012 August 31, 2012 

Conclusion of any discovery 

from an expert witness who 

submitted a certification or 

declaration under L. Pat. R. 

4.5(a) 

September 5, 2012 September 19, 2012 

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 

filing and service of 

responding Markman briefs 

October 5, 2012 October 19, 2012 

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 

deadline for producing and 

providing material related to 

party’s reliance on advice of 

counsel as part of patentrelated claim or defense 

January 18, 2013 January 18, 2013 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 69 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 627
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5173

To prohibit the sale of any alcohol without liquid machine without premarket 

approval, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

Mr. BEAUPREZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To prohibit the sale of any alcohol without liquid machine 

without premarket approval, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alcohol Without Liquid 

5 Machine Safety Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALCOHOL WITHOUT LIQUID MACHINES. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful for any per8 son to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate 

9 commerce any alcohol without liquid machine, unless an 
2

•HR 5173 IH 

1 approval of an application submitted pursuant to sub2 section (b) is in effect with respect to such machine. 

3 (b) APPLICATION.—Any person may file with the 

4 Commissioner an application for premarket approval of an 

5 alcohol without liquid machine. Such an application shall 

6 be submitted in such manner, and containing such infor7 mation, as the Commissioner may require. 

8 (c) APPROVAL.—Upon receipt of an application sub9 mitted pursuant to subsection (b), the Commissioner 

10 shall—

11 (1) issue an order approving the application if 

12 the person submitting the application demonstrates 

13 to the Commissioner’s satisfaction that the alcohol 

14 without liquid machine is safe; or 

15 (2) deny approval of the application if the per16 son submitting the application fails to demonstrate 

17 to the Commissioner’s satisfaction that the alcohol 

18 without liquid machine is safe. 

19 (d) WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL.—The Secretary 

20 may issue an order withdrawing approval of an application 

21 submitted pursuant to subsection (b) if the Secretary finds 

22 that the alcohol without liquid machine is unsafe. 

23 (e) PENALTY.—The provisions of the Federal Food, 

24 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) shall 

25 apply to a violation of subsection (a) in the same manner 
3

•HR 5173 IH 

1 and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a viola2 tion of section 515 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360e; regarding 

3 premarket approval of class III devices). 

4 (f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act: 

5 (1) The term ‘‘alcohol without liquid machine’’ 

6 means a device designed or marketed for the pur7 pose of mixing alcohol with oxygen or another gas 

8 to produce a mist for inhalation for recreational pur9 poses. 

10 (2) The term ‘‘Commissioner’’ means the Com11 missioner of Food and Drugs.

Æ
MS. ESTHER DEGOLLADO

WEBB COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

1110 VICTORIA ST. SUITE 203

LAREDO, TX 78040

RE: Case No. 14-0403 DATE: 4/29/2015

COA #: 04-12-00852-CV TC#: 2008-CVF-000665-D2

STYLE:THOMAS A. LAMONT

v. JERRY L. HAMBLIN AND RICOCHET ENERGY, INC.

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was this day

filed in the above styled and numbered case.

FILE COPY
MR. WALLACE B. JEFFERSON

ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON &

TOWNSEND LLP

515 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 2350

AUSTIN, TX 78701-3562

RE: Case No. 14-0403 DATE: 4/29/2015

COA #: 04-12-00852-CV TC#: 2008-CVF-000665-D2

STYLE:THOMAS A. LAMONT

v. JERRY L. HAMBLIN AND RICOCHET ENERGY, INC.

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was this day

filed in the above styled and numbered case.

FILE COPY
MR. KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK, FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

BEXAR COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER

300 DOLOROSA, STE. 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TX 78205

RE: Case No. 14-0403 DATE: 4/29/2015

COA #: 04-12-00852-CV TC#: 2008-CVF-000665-D2

STYLE:THOMAS A. LAMONT

v. JERRY L. HAMBLIN AND RICOCHET ENERGY, INC.

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was this day

filed in the above styled and numbered case.

FILE COPY
MR. BYRON C. KEELING

KEELING & DOWNES PC

1500 MCGOWEN, SUITE 220

HOUSTON, TX 77004

RE: Case No. 14-0403 DATE: 4/29/2015

COA #: 04-12-00852-CV TC#: 2008-CVF-000665-D2

STYLE:THOMAS A. LAMONT

v. JERRY L. HAMBLIN AND RICOCHET ENERGY, INC.

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was this day

filed in the above styled and numbered case.

FILE COPY
# cpsaat48
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 D-74-14

___________________________________ In the Matter of JON C. COOPER, an Attorney.
COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JON C. COOPER, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2594471)

___________________________________ Calendar Date: October 14, 2014 Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for petitioner. Jon C. Cooper, respondent pro se.

__________
Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. He was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, upon his guilty plea, of one count of federal tax evasion (26 USC § 7201), a federal felony that has been defined as a "serious crime" (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]; see Matter of Uhl, 88 AD3d 1052, 1052 [2011], appeal dismissed 19 NY3d 941 [2012]). Respondent does not dispute that, after he and an accomplice defrauded an airline company of $1 million, respondent failed to report at least $448,727 of the proceeds of that scheme on his federal tax return. On March 6, 2014,-2- D-74-14

respondent was sentenced to 18 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The sentencing court further ordered respondent to pay restitution to the defrauded airline and the federal government in the total amount of $1,140,109.86. Petitioner now moves for an order imposing final discipline pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g). Respondent does not contest the propriety of the motion. Under the circumstances presented, and considering the serious criminal conduct committed by respondent (see e.g. Matter of Kerekes, 95 AD3d 1431, 1432 [2012]; Matter of Richichi, 52 AD3d 1109, 1109 [2008]), we conclude that he should be disbarred in this state. Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give another opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further-3- D-74-14

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court's rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9).

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Case 2:11-cv-04716-DMC-JAD   Document 15   Filed 12/15/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 357

Case 2:11-cv-04716-DMC-JAD   Document 15   Filed 12/15/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 358
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5394

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the taxation of arrow components.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5394 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. EXCISE TAX ON ARROWS. 

2 (a) REPEAL.—Subsection (b) of section 332 of the 

3 American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and the amend4 ments made by such subsection, are hereby repealed; and 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if 

6 such subsection and amendments had never been enacted. 

7 (b) TAX ON ARROW SHAFTS.—Paragraph (2) of sec8 tion 4161(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat9 ing to arrows) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(2) ARROWS.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby im12 posed on the first sale by the manufacturer, 

13 producer, or importer of any shaft (whether 

14 sold separately or incorporated as part of a fin15 ished or unfinished product) of a type used in 

16 the manufacture of any arrow which after its 

17 assembly—

18 ‘‘(i) measures 18 inches overall or 

19 more in length, or 

20 ‘‘(ii) measures less than 18 inches 

21 overall in length but is suitable for use 

22 with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A), 

23 a tax equal to 39 cents per shaft. 

24 ‘‘(B) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—

25 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

26 calendar year beginning after 2005, the 
3

HR 5394 RDS 

1 39-cent amount specified in subparagraph 

2 (A) shall be increased by an amount equal 

3 to the product of—

4 ‘‘(I) such amount, multiplied by 

5 ‘‘(II) the cost-of-living adjust6 ment determined under section 1(f)(3) 

7 for such calendar year, determined by 

8 substituting ‘2004’ for ‘1992’ in sub9 paragraph (B) thereof. 

10 ‘‘(ii) ROUNDING.—If any increase de11 termined under clause (i) is not a multiple 

12 of 1 cent, such increase shall be rounded 

13 to the nearest multiple of 1 cent.’’. 

14 (c) ARROW POINTS.—Clause (ii) of section 

15 4161(b)(1)(B) (relating to archery equipment) of such 

16 Code is amended by striking ‘‘quiver or broadhead’’ and 

17 inserting ‘‘quiver, broadhead, or point’’. 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to articles sold by the
4

HR 5394 RDS 

1 manufacturer, producer, or importer after March 31, 

2 2005.

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### Williams *v.*The State.

.Simmons, J. — The motion for a new trial having, by an order passed at the term when the case was tried, been set for a hearing on a day named in vacation, the order providing that the movant should have until that day to make out and file a brief of the evidence, and the hearing having then been continued until the next term of the superior court by an order which preserved until the hearing at that term the movant’s right to file and have approved abrief of the evidence, and the brief having been filed before that term, it was error to then refuse to approve it and to dismiss the motion on the ground that no brief of evidence had been filed within thirty days from the adjournment of the court at which the verdict was found. *Brunswick etc. Co.*v. *Gale,*91 *Ga.*813, 819; *Adamson*v. *Melson,*91 *Ga. 725.*

October 8,1894.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Janes. Douglas superior court. May term, 1894.

W. A. James, for plaintiff in error.

A. Richardson, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4695** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. JAMES S. WOLFE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00002

- IMK

- 1 )

Submitted : March 2, 2012 Decided: March 9, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published p er curiam opinion

. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld , II, United States Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant U nited States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James S. Wolfe appeals the 87

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of child pornograph y, in violation of 18 U.S.C. A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) ( West & Supp. 2011 ). On appeal, Wolfe argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. The Government filed a responsive brief, arguing that this court should dismiss Wolfe’s appeal based on the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We conclude that Wolfe knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of his waiver . We therefore dismiss Wolfe’s appeal. A defendant may, i n a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v. Manigan , 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will uphold a waiver of appellate rights if the waiv er is knowing and intelligent and the issue being appealed is covered by the waiver. United States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine the totality of the circumstances, Mani gan , 592 F.3d at 627, including “the background, experience, and conduct of the accused,” United States v. Davis , 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).3 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Wolfe knowingly a nd intelligently waived his right to appeal a sentence of 120 months or less. Because we conclude that Wolfe’s challenge to his eighty

- seven - month sentence falls within the scope of the waiver, we dismiss his appeal. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of W2 Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
McLaren, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:     June
      8, 2009
            /s/
      Michael McLarenBy:  Michael
      McLarenIts:  Chief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
W2 Energy, Inc. and will be retained by W2 Energy, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Tayjes M. Shah, ESQUIRE 

THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 

108 Railroad Avenue 

Orange, VA 22960 

Phone (540) 672-4224 

Fax (610) 940-0284 

NJ Bar ID 01750-2009 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

THOMAS BARNES ) 

 )

) 

) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:11-cv-04163-SDW -MCA

 v. ) 

 ) MDL No. 2158

ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC. and ) 

ZIMMER, INC., ) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

Plaintiff THOMAS BARNES hereby voluntarily dismisses without prejudice all counts 

of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

For the purposes of this dismissal to date, Defendant has not answered or 

otherwise appeared. 

 

THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 

BY: /s/ Tayjes Shah

Tayjes M. Shah, ESQUIRE 

THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 

108 Railroad Avenue 

Orange, VA 22960 

Phone (540) 672-4224 

Fax (540) 672-3055 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Barnes

Dated: 10/13/11 

Case 2:11-cv-04163-SDW-MCA Document 12 Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 67
Case 2:11-cv-04163-SDW-MCA Document 12 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 68