alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32.1





WRITTEN
      STATEMENT


OF


CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





The
      undersigned hereby certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the
      undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
      2005 filed by Neuro-Hitech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
      in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the issuer.








Date:
      March 31, 2006


By: /s/
      Reuben Seltzer


Reuben
      Seltzer


Chief
      Executive Officer




Date:
      March 31, 2006


By: /s/
      Nicholas LaRosa


Nicholas
      LaRosa


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert McDonald PARRIS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4737.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 25, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Robert McDonald Parris appeals his conviction and ninety-four month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). Counsel has filed an Anders* brief in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing when he argued for a sentence at the bottom of the Guideline range rather than a more lenient sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). Parris was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. *See United States v. King,*119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). *See id.; United States v. Hoyle,*33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir.1994). An exception exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. *United States v. Richardson,*195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that any deficiencies in counsel’s performance are not conclusively demonstrated.

*758In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Parris’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Parris, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parris requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Parris.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

*Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
§ 680.700 What are the requirements for on-the-job training? ( a ) OJT is defined at WIOA sec. 3(44). OJT is provided under a contract with an employer or registered apprenticeship program sponsor in the public, private non-profit, or private sector. Through the OJT contract, occupational training is provided for the WIOA participant in exchange for the reimbursement, typically up to 50 percent of the wage rate of the participant, for the extraordinary costs of providing the training and supervision related to the training. In limited circumstances, as provided in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3)(h) and § 680.730, the reimbursement may be up to 75 percent of the wage rate of the participant.
( b ) OJT contracts under WIOA title I, must not be entered into with an employer who has received payments under previous contracts under WIOA or WIA if the employer has exhibited a pattern of failing to provide OJT participants with continued long-term employment as regular employees with wages and employment benefits (including health benefits) and working conditions at the same level and to the same extent as other employees working a similar length of time and doing the same type of work.
( c ) An OJT contract must be limited to the period of time required for a participant to become proficient in the occupation for which the training is being provided. In determining the appropriate length of the contract, consideration should be given to the skill requirements of the occupation, the academic and occupational skill level of the participant, prior work experience, and the participant's IEP.
\ SERVED: MAY 23, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA- 2013-0284 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012CE440003) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

,..·· 

Ro ie A. Yoder ,/ 

Chief Administrative Law Judge' I 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Douglas J. Barnard, Esq., Respondent's Counsel 

14695 Airport Parkway, 2nd Floor 

Clearwater, FL 33762 

TEL: 727-259-0224 

FPC(: 727-259-0223 

E-MAIL: dougb@planelaw.com 

Mr. Karman Rouhani 

Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc., Respondent 

2750 Sunset Point Road 

Clearwater, FL 33759 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Enforcement Attorney, Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Room 506, DOT Building, 901 Locust St. 

Kansas, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FPC(: 816-329-3771 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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 Quarterly Report of Cover-All Technologies Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ann F. Massey, Chief Financial Officer (principal
financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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: May 11, 2007


/s/ Ann F. Massey
-------------------------------------
Name: Ann F. Massey
Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### James Pearl, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Hiram F. Probus, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 11949;

Fourth District —

September 10, 1973.

Thomson & Mirza, of Bloomington, (James Walker, of counsel,) for appellant.

Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, Professional Corporation, of Springfield, (Robert E. Gillespie, of counsel,) for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN.
Exhibit






Second Amendment to Employment Agreement


This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”), to the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated January 6, 2017 between Payment Data Systems, Inc. ("PDS") and Tom Jewell (“Executive") is made on the 28th day of November, 2018, and is made part of the Agreement which is hereby amended as follows:


1.           Definitions.  All capitalized terms used herein and not expressly defined herein shall have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.


2.           Entire Agreement.  Except as expressly modified by this Second Amendment, the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and shall constitute the legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligations of PDS and Executive.


3.           Successors and Assigns.  This Second Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto.


4.           Section References.  Section titles and references used in this Second Amendment shall be without substantive meaning or content of any kind whatsoever and are not a part of the agreements among the parties hereto evidenced hereby.


5.           Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:


	
		
	a.
	The Base Salary as set forth in Schedule 4(a) of Schedule 1 to the Agreement is hereby amended to be $220,000 per annum effective November 26, 2018.






This Second Amendment amends the Agreement as set forth herein. All previously existing obligations under the Agreement are hereby reaffirmed in all respects.
 
In witness thereof, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement on the day and year first above written.
 
 
	
			
	Payment Data Systems, Inc.
	 
	Executive

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ Louis A. Hoch
	 
	By: /s/ Tom Jewell

	Name: Louis A. Hoch
	 
	Name: Tom Jewell

	Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
	 
	Title: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ACORN HOLDING CORP. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737243
<NAME>                    ACORN HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         791,428
<SECURITIES>                                   589,928
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,980,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,976,030
<PP&E>                                         1,947,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                 793,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,699,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          656,092
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       40,684
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,461,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,699,223
<SALES>                                        877,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               877,455
<CGS>                                          805,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,215,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (12,008)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (325,733)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (66,806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (258,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.064)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.064)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-2000

<CASH>                        8,702,383
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                    58,207
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,760,590
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                9,864,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            38,389
<BONDS>                      36,628,074
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                  (40,101,570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  9,864,027
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,438,414
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,340,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,803,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (4,220,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (4,220,283)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               2,697,477
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                 (1,522,806)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (3.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (3.65)




</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

July 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 03-30139 Summary Calendar

_______________



### L INDA 

### F. W AFER


### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### J AMES 

### P ERSON 

### ; C HUCK 

### N ORENBERG 

### ; N ORMA 

### R EEDY 

### ; A MERICAN 

### P OSTAL 

### W ORKERS 

### U NION 

### ; P ATSY 

### P IQUE


### ,

Defendants-Appellees,

_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana



### m 02-CV-1278

_________________________2

Before H IGGINBOTHAM , S MITH , and
C LEMENT , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

Linda Wafer, pro se , appeals the dismissal
of her suit against several posta l employees
and t heir union. Reviewing the dismissal d e

novo , Brown v. NationsBank Corp.

, 188 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999), we affirm.

Wafer sued the Postmaster General for discrimination and breach of a labor a greement. The district court dismissed that suit, based partly on the defenda nt s’ affidavits. Wafer
then sued defe ndants, essentially for lying in
their affidavits. She cryptically accused them
of libel, obstruction of justice, perjury, misuse
of proc ess, and abuse of office. The district

court di smissed, holding that the defendants
had absolute immunit

y for statements made as witnesses.

Although Wafer do es not specify whether
her suit arises under B ivens v. Six Unknow n Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics

, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 26 71 e t seq. , the

source of law makes no difference. Witnesses
have absolute immunit

y from a Bivens acti on based on their testimony. B riscoe v. LaH u e , 4 60 U.S. 325, 334 (1983); Charles v. Wad e , 665 F.2d 661, 666 (Former 5th Cir. 1982).
Louisiana law also gives non-party witness e s

a b solute immunit

y from damages based on their former testimony. 1 Marrogi v. Howard

, 805 So. 2d 1118, 1126 (La. 2002). Defendants are therefore entitled to absolute immunity in any event. 2

AFFIRMED.

* Pu rsuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that thi s 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. 1 Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, we apply
the law of the stat e in which the events occurred. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674; Brown , 188 F.3d

at 586. Louisiana law gives a non-party witness
absolute immuni ty only for “pertinent and material” testimony, Marrogi

, 805 So. 2d at 1126, but
Wafer concedes tha t the defendants’ affidavits
were relevant to her earlier suit.

2 To the extent that any defendants are not federal officers for purposes of Bivens or the Federal

Tort Claims Act, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over Wafer’s claims against them,28 U.S.C. § 1367, and they too have absolute immunity f rom her claims, M

arrogi

, 805 So. 2d
at 1126.
§ 658.422 Processing of employment-related law complaints by the Regional Administrator. ( a ) This section applies to all complaints submitted directly to the Regional Administrator or their representative.
( b ) Each complaint filed by an MSFW alleging violation(s) of employment-related laws must be taken in writing, logged, and referred to the appropriate enforcement agency for prompt action. If such a complaint alleges a violation of nondiscrimination laws or reprisal for protected activity, it must be referred to the appropriate State-level E.O. Officer in accordance with § 658.420(b)(1).
( c ) Each complaint submitted by a non-MSFW alleging violation(s) of employment-related laws must be logged and referred to the appropriate enforcement agency for prompt action. If such a complaint alleges a violation of nondiscrimination laws or reprisal for protected activity, it must be referred to the appropriate State-level E.O. Officer in accordance with § 658.420(b)(1).
( d ) Upon referring the complaint in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the regional official must inform the complainant of the enforcement agency (and individual, if known) to which the complaint was referred.
[81 FR 56352, Aug. 19, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 82733, Nov. 24, 2023]
§ 618.330 Assessment of trade-affected workers. ( a ) The assessment process forms the basis for determining which TAA Program benefits and services, including training, are most appropriate to enable trade-affected workers to successfully become reemployed.
( b ) The State must schedule an initial assessment that provides sufficient time and information for the trade-affected worker to consider, request, and enroll in training or obtain a waiver of the training requirement in § 618.720(g) to protect the worker's eligibility to receive TRA under subpart G of this part.
( c ) Assessments are administered with the cooperation of the trade-affected worker and should include discussion of the worker's interests, skills, aptitudes, and abilities.
( d ) The results of assessments must be documented in the case file, either through case notes or as a stand-alone document.
( e ) If an assessment has already been administered by a partner program, it must be reviewed once a worker becomes a trade-affected worker to ensure it has the required components as listed in § 618.335 for an initial assessment and, if necessary, § 618.345 for a comprehensive and specialized assessment. If the assessment(s) does not contain the required components, the assessment(s) must be supplemented by the State, in conjunction with the trade-affected worker, to ensure it is fully compliant with TAA Program requirements in this part.
( f ) The State must make the trade-affected worker aware of the advantages of receiving an assessment(s). However, a worker may refuse an assessment. Since portions of the assessment(s) are necessary to determine eligibility for certain TAA Program benefits, a worker's refusal to provide necessary information, either as part of the assessment or outside of the assessment process, may result in a denial of a those benefits. This is detailed further in the applicable benefit sections throughout this part.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

March-11

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to change

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily Total 

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In CFS 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Mar-11 4508 4 13 471 182 3 3 0 5 3 9 311 120 4,928 3,537 

2-Mar-11 4 0 12 4 16 4 487 186 3 0 8 3 11 3 321 123 5,935 3,542 

3-Mar-11 8484 16 8 503 194 5 3 5 3 11 5 332 128 4,460 4,074 4-Mar-11 0808 0 16 503 210 0 5 0 5 0 11 332 139 4,461 4,123 5-Mar-11 12 4 0 0 12 4 515 214 8 3 0 0 8 3 340 141 4,460 4,195 

6-Mar-11 8044 12 4 527 218 5 0 3 3 8 3 348 144 4,461 4,171 7-Mar-11 8 12 11 4 19 16 546 234 5 8 7 3 13 11 360 154 3,918 4,194 8-Mar-11 4900 4 9 550 243 3 6 0 0 3 6 363 160 3,735 4,180 

9-Mar-11 8292 17 4 567 247 5 1 6 1 11 3 374 163 3,640 4,201 

10-Mar-11 0020 2 0 569 247 0 0 1 0 1 0 376 163 3,360 4,156 11-Mar-11 12 0 10 0 22 0 591 247 8 0 7 0 15 0 390 163 3,360 4,168 12-Mar-11 0000 0 0 591 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 390 163 3,360 4,192 13-Mar-11 0400 0 4 591 251 0 3 0 0 0 3 390 166 4,275 4,045 14-Mar-11 4000 4 0 595 251 3 0 0 0 3 0 393 166 3,908 3,719 15-Mar-11 0104 0 5 595 256 0 1 0 3 0 3 393 169 3,331 3,525 16-Mar-11 0040 4 0 599 256 0 0 3 0 3 0 395 169 3,334 3,528 17-Mar-11 0000 0 0 599 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 395 169 3,707 3,522 18-Mar-11 0000 0 0 599 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 395 169 3,363 3,531 19-Mar-11 0004 0 4 599 260 0 0 0 3 0 3 395 172 3,331 3,530 

20-Mar-11 0004 0 4 599 264 0 0 0 3 0 3 395 174 3,707 3,543 21-Mar-11 8000 8 0 607 264 5 0 0 0 5 0 401 174 3,331 3,562 22-Mar-11 4440 8 4 615 268 3 3 3 0 5 3 406 177 3,473 3,505 23-Mar-11 4004 4 4 619 272 3 0 0 3 3 3 409 180 689 2,769 

24-Mar-11 0000 0 0 619 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 409 180 0 0 

25-Mar-11 0000 0 0 619 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 409 180 0 0 

26-Mar-11 4000 4 0 623 272 3 0 0 0 3 0 411 180 2,844 0 

27-Mar-11 6800 6 8 629 280 4 5 0 0 4 5 415 185 4,433 0 28-Mar-11 0400 0 4 629 284 0 3 0 0 0 3 415 187 3,487 601 29-Mar-11 8500 8 5 637 289 5 3 0 0 5 3 420 191 5,506 845 

30-Mar-11 0010 1 0 638 289 0 0 1 0 1 0 421 191 0 1,565 

31-Mar-11 0404 0 8 638 297 0 3 0 3 0 5 421 196 3,934 1,860 

Total 106 74 65 54 171 128 638 297 70 49 43 36 113 84 421 196 106,730 92,383 

Banks Tracy Co