alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
James E. Cecchi 

Lindsey H. Taylor 

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI 

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 

5 Becker Farm Road 

Roseland, New Jersey 07068 

(973) 994-1700 

Timothy G. Blood 

Thomas J. O’Reardon II 

BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 

701 B Street, Suite 1700 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 338-1100 

Adam J. Levitt 

John E. Tangren 

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 214-0000 

Jeffrey A. Leon 

Jamie E. Weiss 

QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 

513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 

Highland Park, Illinois 60035 

(847) 433-4500 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BAYER CORPORATION, 

Defendant 

Civil Action No. 07-01 (JLL)(JAD) 

IN RE BAYER PHILLIPS COLON HEALTH 

PROBIOTIC SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

 Civil Action No. 11-3017(JLL)(JAD) 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

TO: All Counsel on ECF Counsel List 

COUNSEL: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10 a.m., or as soon thereafter 

as counsel may be heard, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs shall move before Hon. Jose L. 

Case 2:11-cv-03017-JLL-JAD Document 126 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1606
2

Linares at the Martin Luther King Federal Building, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 

07102 appealing the May 8, 2015 Order of the Magistrate Judge denying Plaintiffs’ application 

to modify the Discovery Confidentiality Orders in the above matters. 

The undersigned intends to rely upon the annexed Brief. 

The undersigned hereby requests oral argument. 

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, 

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

By: /s/ James E. Cecchi 

JAMES E. CECCHI 

 

DATED: May 13, 2015 

Timothy G. Blood 

Thomas J. O’Reardon II 

BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 

701 B Street, Suite 1700 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 338-1100 

Jeffrey A. Leon 

Jamie E. Weiss 

QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 

513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 

Highland Park, Illinois 60035 

(847) 433-4500 

Adam J. Levitt 

John E. Tangren 

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 214-0000 

Case 2:11-cv-03017-JLL-JAD Document 126 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1607
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(In thousands)

Category

Total Age Sex

2002 2003

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

Total not in the labor force .................................... 72,707 74,658 12,976 13,800 20,358 20,980 39,373 39,878 27,085 28,197 45,621 46,461

 Do not want a job now 1 ..................................... 68,029 69,932 11,254 12,079 18,286 18,857 38,489 38,996 24,994 26,073 43,035 43,859

 Want a job 1 ........................................................ 4,677 4,726 1,722 1,721 2,071 2,124 884 882 2,091 2,124 2,586 2,603

 Did not search for work in previous year .......... 2,673 2,631 910 882 1,112 1,129 651 620 1,135 1,127 1,538 1,503

 Searched for work in previous year 2 ............... 2,004 2,096 812 838 960 995 233 262 956 996 1,048 1,099

 Not available to work now ............................... 565 564 272 274 252 248 41 43 227 231 338 333

 Available to work now ..................................... 1,439 1,531 540 565 708 747 191 220 729 765 710 766

 Reason not currently looking:

 Discouragement over job prospects 3 ........ 369 457 110 134 209 248 51 75 226 266 143 190

 Reasons other than discouragement .......... 1,070 1,075 430 431 499 499 141 145 503 499 567 576

 Family responsibilities .............................. 150 153 31 37 99 94 20 22 34 35 116 118

 In school or training .................................. 238 239 195 194 41 42 2 3 126 125 112 114

 Ill health or disability ................................. 107 113 16 15 61 72 30 26 50 51 56 62

 Other 4 ...................................................... 575 570 188 184 299 292 88 94 292 288 283 282

1 Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job. 2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched

since the end of that job. 3 Includes believes no work available, could not find work, lacks

necessary schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and

other types of discrimination.

4 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks

for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a

small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population

controls used in the household survey.

245
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No. 11-352-03 (FSH)

 

v. : O R D E R

JAISON MARTINEZ : 

Defendant. :

This matter having come before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge filed in this matter, which was submitted as a result of this Court having

referred this cause to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a plea proceeding under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and the defendant having consented to the Magistrate Judge conducting the

guilty plea proceeding; and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as

the transcript of the proceedings on January 18, 2012, and there being no objection to the Report and

Recommendation timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b); and the Court finding the Report and

Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law; and the Court hereby finding that

the Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted and the defendant’s guilty plea

accepted,

IT IS ON THIS 8 day of February, 2012, th

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

approved and adopted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and a judgment

of guilt to Count One of the Indictment shall be entered. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 66 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 181
**Exhibit
        No. 32.2**
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **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 Quarter Report of Juhl Wind, Inc., a Delaware corporation
        (the “Company”), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        the undersigned, the President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned’s knowledge:
 
 (1)
          the Report of the Company filed today 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 operation of the Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
 Date:
                  November 11, 2008
              
              */s/John
                  P. Mitola*John
                  P. MitolaPresident
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-11029

_____________________ MICHAEL J. MONCRIEF, Etc.; ET AL, Plaintiffs,

v. W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR., Etc.; ET AL, Defendants.

-------------------- W.A. “TEX” MONCRIEF, JR.; CHARLES B. MONCRIEF; RICHARD W. MONCRIEF; MONTEX DRILLING COMPANY,

Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. BILLY W. JARVIS,

Third Party Defendant-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:98-CV-528-E)

_________________________________________________________________ September 9, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, STEWART, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge *

.** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 PER CURIAM: ** The court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See City of Waco v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. , 293 U.S. 140 (1934). On brief and at length at oral argument, appellant claimed that he was denied the opportunity in the district court to develop the necessary facts. That argument is devoid of merit. The district court’s Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Clarifying Order entered July 7, 1998 specifically advised that “[i]f a party wishes to assert a right to an evidentiary hearing or request further discovery on an issue, he may do so by filing an appropriate written request in a timely fashion.” If, indeed, appellant failed to take advantage of that invitation, the problem is of his own making. The Order of the District Court entered August 3, 1998 denying appellant’s Petition for Certification is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in that Order. AFFIRMED.
**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 Airspan Networks Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric Stonestrom,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: March
                  12, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Eric
                  StonestromEric
                  StonestromChief
                    Executive Officer
#### Decker & Fawcett *v.*Gwinn & Franklin.

Simmons, J. — A contract for *the*sale of goods was not complete, where there was an offer to buy at a given price, which was answered substantially in these terms: “Will accept. Eeasonable time for delivery. Please name limit *” ;*no limit being at any time named, so far as appears.

October 22, 1894.

Complaint. Before Judge Sweat. Glynn superior court. May term, 1894.

The petition was dismissed on motion, as insufficient in law. It alleged, that Davant & Hunt, brokers, sold to plaintiffs, for account of defendants ten cars of grits at $1.13 per sack, which sale was based on a telegram in the following language, sent by defendants to Davant & Hunt: “ Will accept for ten cars grits in sacks. Reasonable time for delivery. Please name limit.” Defendants failed to deliver the goods at the price agreed by them; whereby plaintiffs were compelled to buy and did buy ten cars of grits at $1.60 per sack. The' suit was for the difference in price.

Garrard, Meldrim & Newman and Goodyear & Kay, for plaintiffs. Symmes & Bennet, by Harrison & Peebles, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Case 3:10-cr-00398-PGS Document 11 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 30
Case 3:10-cr-00398-PGS Document 11 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 31
#### Reynaldo AYON-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73236.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel ICE, OIL, Dara Smith, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 **

Reynaldo Ayon-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ayon-Nunez’s motion to reopen the discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status, where the BIA concluded that the new evidence he submitted was insufficient to overcome the significant negative factor in his case and Ayon-Nunez has not raised a colorable due process challenge to the BIA’s discretionary determination that he is not entitled to adjustment of status. *See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales,*466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (order) (“[T]he decision to deny Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status is a discretionary determination, and is therefore unreviewable.”); *see Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006) (where there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen concerning the same determination).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ayon-Nunez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



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 July 31, 2005
(the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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: September 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Chris L. Koliopoulos             
|                        |  | Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D.          
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Angel Raymundo CRUZ, also known as Angel Varelas Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50147

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2012.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*307Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Angel Raymundo Cruz appeals from the sentences imposed for his guilty plea convictions for attempted illegal reentry and for false personation in immigration matters. The district court sentenced him to concurrent, within-guidelines terms of 27 months of imprisonment and did not impose a term of supervised release. Cruz challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentences, arguing that his sentences are unreasonable because they are greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based and resulted in the double counting of a prior drug conviction. He argues, in reliance on *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 109-10, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply, but he concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009), and he raises the argument to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court. He further asserts that the guideline range overstated the seriousness of the offense and faded to account for his benign motive for reentering.

Cruz’s argument that his guidelines range was greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of double counting is unavailing. *See United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009). In addition, the district court heard Cruz’s statement concerning his cultural assimilation and reasons for reentering the United States before imposing a sentence within the advisory guideline range. The district court considered the statutory sentencing factors in § 3553(a) prior to imposing a sentence within the Guidelines. Cruz’s within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). He has failed to show that the presumption should not apply. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the advisory guideline range. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT
      32.1


RESOLVE
      STAFFING, INC.


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 Resolve Staffing, Inc. (the Company) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald Heineman,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations of the Company.





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





Date:
      April 15, 2006








*/s/
      Ronald Heineman*


Ronald
      Heineman


Chief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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

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 Executive 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 June
30, 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/ John W. Winterholler
Bohn W. Winterholler
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 19, 2005
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Homeland EnergySolutions, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Walter W. Wendland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Walter W. Wendland   |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Walter W. Wendland,      |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | Dated:                   | May 17, 2010 |

 

----
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 1 of 24 PageID: 8556

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 2 of 24 PageID: 8557

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 3 of 24 PageID: 8558

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 4 of 24 PageID: 8559

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 5 of 24 PageID: 8560

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 6 of 24 PageID: 8561

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 7 of 24 PageID: 8562

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 8 of 24 PageID: 8563

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 9 of 24 PageID: 8564

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 10 of 24 PageID: 8565

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 11 of 24 PageID: 8566

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 12 of 24 PageID: 8567

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 13 of 24 PageID: 8568

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 14 of 24 PageID: 8569

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 15 of 24 PageID: 8570

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 16 of 24 PageID: 8571

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 17 of 24 PageID: 8572

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 18 of 24 PageID: 8573

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 19 of 24 PageID: 8574

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 20 of 24 PageID: 8575

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 21 of 24 PageID: 8576

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 22 of 24 PageID: 8577

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 23 of 24 PageID: 8578

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1116   Filed 12/11/09   Page 24 of 24 PageID: 8579