alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.2 In general, what is the Director's policy regarding such claims? ( a ) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8137(a)(2), a special schedule is established by subpart B of this part that applies to any non-citizen non-resident Federal employee who is neither hired nor employed in the United States, Canada or in a possession or territory of the United States (hereinafter non-citizen non-resident employees). The special schedule in subpart B of this part is subject to the exceptions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The special schedule set forth in subpart B of this part applies to claims of such employees whose injury (or injury resulting in death) occurred on or after August 29, 2011.
( b ) This special schedule of compensation established by subpart B of this part shall apply to non-citizen non-resident employees outside of the United States unless: ( 1 ) The injured employee receives compensation pursuant to a specific separate agreement between the United States and another government (or similar compensation from another sovereign government);
( 2 ) The employee receives compensation pursuant to the special schedule under subpart C for the particular locality, or for a class of employees in that particular locality; or
( 3 ) The employee otherwise establishes entitlement to compensation under local law pursuant to § 25.100(e).
( c ) Compensation in all cases of such employees paid and closed prior to August 29, 2011 shall be deemed compromised and paid under 5 U.S.C. 8137. In all other cases, compensation may be adjusted to conform with the regulations in this part, or the beneficiary may by compromise or agreement with the Director have compensation continued on the basis of a previous adjustment of the claim.
( d ) Compensation received by beneficiaries pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8137 and the special schedule set forth in subpart B or as otherwise specified in paragraph (b) of this section is the exclusive measure of compensation in cases of injury (or death from injury) to non-citizen non-resident employees of the United States as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) Compensation for disability and death of non-citizen non-resident employees outside the United States under this part shall in no event exceed that generally payable under the FECA.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20067

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOE MONDRAGON-JIMENEZ, also known as

Noe Jiminez Mondragon, also known as

Noe Jimenez Mondragon, also known as

Noe Mondragon,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-325-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Mondragon-Jimenez (Mondragon) appeals the sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being unlawfully

present in the United States after deportation, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mondragon argues for the first time on appeal

that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by

characterizing his state felony convictions for possession of a

controlled substance as aggravated felonies for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Mondragon’s argument is unavailing in
No. 06-20067

-2-

light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,

130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Mondragon argues that this

circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States,

318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is

not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly

overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short,

181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

For the first time on appeal, Mondragon also challenges the

constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Government argues that

Mondragon lacks standing to bring a facial challenge to the

constitutionality of § 1326(b).

Because Mondragon may be entitled to a lesser sentence if

his constitutional challenge were successful, he has standing. 

See Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Mondragon cannot succeed on his constitutional challenge,

however, because his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Mondragon

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that

a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres

in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments

on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United

States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Mondragon properly concedes that

his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and
No. 06-20067

-3-

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Matthew Houston O’Brien for Admission to Practice as an Attorney. (From the District of of Columbia.)

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 166

 164

 163

 157

 154

 144

 138

 133

 131

 131

 127

 122

 125

 124

 124

 133

 140

 131

 131

 138

 137

 134

 160

 145

 141

 125

 136

 127

 136

 137

 141

 148

 146

 144

 143

 138

 131

 125

 122

 122

 120

 118

 116

 114

 115

 116

 116

 116

 116

 120

 124

 124

 123

 123

 124

 122

 120

 120

 120

 118

 121

 126

 154

 152

 151

 149

 146

 138

 130

 126

 125

 123

 120

 118

 118

 119

 119

 121

 122

 122

 125

 129

 128

 127

 130

 128

 127

 123

 124

 123

 124

 127

 130

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 3, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### Kraus-Baum Company, Respondent, v. Moses Housman, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J,, Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ,
#### § 702.205 Employer's report; effect of failure to report upon time limitations.

Where the employer, or agent in charge of the business, or carrier has been given notice or has knowledge of an employee's injury or death, and fails, neglects, or refuses to file a report thereof as required by § 702.201, the time limitations provisions with respect to the filing of claims for compensation for disability or death (33 U.S.C. 913(a), and see § 702.221) shall not begin to run until such report shall have been furnished as required herein.

[38 FR 26861, Sept. 26, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 397, Jan. 3, 1985]
1 

### Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 5:10 PM To: Brown, Kelly Subject: FW: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 - Ozone NAAQs NPRM Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866_135 63_OzoneNAAQs_NPRM_11_ 17.docx

Please post email and attachment(s) to Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking docket. Thanks

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:54 PM To: Sasser, Erika; Wesson, Karen; Scavo, Kimber; Keati ng, Martha; Elman, Barry; Owens, Nicole Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 - Ozone NAAQs NPRM
Attached please find a summary of some additional i nteragency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the Ozone NAAQs NPRM. Thanks and please let me know if you h ave any questions.

Nathan
### Martin , Michae l (OST )
From : Sent : To :

Cc : Subject : Attachments : 

# mm m Martin , Michae l (OST

^ ^:(p j OPERATION S Friday , January07 , 2011 4:4 2 P M 'Dav e Frenc h (kaadave@frontier.com)' ; 'rajentzsch@mail.cityofpage.org'

- 'dimbatt@cabieone.net' ; 'Vardiman,Ben' ; 'Kenn yPatterso n (jolea2y^sliiM*/l8\tez..^vf ^ U M 'jsaie m @ cityofkingman.gov ' 'Gulfstream , Micke yBowman' ; 'Grea t Lakes , Chuc k Howell' ; 'lenglish@seaportair.com' ; 'brad.rawson@skywest.com' ; 'mmatthews@flygreatlakes.com' ; Devany , Denni s (OST ) EA S ai rcarrie rproposal s a t Kingman , Page , Prescott , an d Sho wLow , A Z Grea t Lake s PG APR C SO WIG M Bi d a s of1-6-201 1 .pdf ; Gulfstrea m EA S Bi d PG APR C SO WIG M - Ja n 2011 .pdf ; SeaPort ShowLowFinal201 1 .pdf ; SkyWes t PG ADO TSubmissio n 2011 .pd f
Everyone :
I woul d lik e t o updat e yo u o n th e essentia l ai rservic e (EAS) situatio n a t Kingman , Page , Prescott , an d Sho wLow , an d giv e yo u a n opportunit yt o offe ran ycomment s o n th e recor d befor e w e submi t a recommendatio n t o th e Assistan t Secretary fo rAviatio n an d Internationa l Affairs

. Th e curren t EA S contrac t a t you rcommunit yexpire s Apri l 30 , 2011 , an d i n anticipatio n o fthat , w e issue d Orde r2010-11-17 , Novembe r17 , 2010 , solicitin g proposal s fro m carrier s intereste d i n providin g subsidize d EA S fo ra new , two-yea rperiod , beginnin g Ma y1 , 2011

. I n respons e t o ou rrequest , fou rairline s submitte d proposals : Grea t Lake s Aviatio n (th e incumbent) , Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airlines , SeaPor t Airlines , an d SkyWes t Airlines

. I hav e attache d eac h carrier' s proposa l fo ryou rreview

. W e reques t tha t yo u revie wth e proposal s an d submi t an ycomment s yo u ma yhav e soo n as possible , bu t n o late rtha n Thursday

. February3

. Pleas e sen d you rcomment s vi a e-mai l t o EAS@dot.eov

. I fyo u hav e an yquestions , fee l fre e t o contac t me

. Sincerely , Michae l Marti n Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s Essentia l Ai rServic e (EAS) an d Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m (SCASDP ) 

### (202 ) 366-649 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 481.06

 480.01

 478.75

 477.42

 475.85

 474.24

 472.72

 471.14

 469.81

 468.80

 467.79

 466.76

 465.41

 463.72

 461.57

 459.42

 457.65

 455.85

 454.07

 452.54

 451.07

 449.35

 447.53

 445.71

 444.27

 442.83

 441.71

 440.59

 439.23

 438.09

 1,295,771

 1,284,341

 1,270,670

 1,256,291

 1,239,368

 1,222,130

 1,205,925

 1,189,153

 1,175,094

 1,164,454

 1,153,844

 1,143,057

 1,128,968

 1,111,411

 1,089,205

 1,067,145

 1,049,096

 1,030,846

 1,012,902

 997,563

 982,898

 965,831

 947,882

 930,045

 916,013

 902,053

 891,246

 880,483

 867,472

 856,617

STORAGE

-10,918

-11,430

-13,671

-14,379

-16,923

-17,238

-16,205

-16,772

-14,059

-10,640

-10,610

-10,787

-14,089

-17,557

-22,206

-22,060

-18,049

-18,250

-17,944

-15,339

-14,665

-17,067

-17,949

-17,837

-14,032

-13,960

-10,807

-10,763

-13,011

-10,855

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

PUMPING

 5,450

 5,450

 6,776

 7,195

 8,465

 8,822

 7,984

 8,373

 6,955

 5,218

 5,210

 5,210

 7,047

 8,644

 11,260

 11,182

 9,249

 9,188

 9,105

 7,745

 7,252

 8,605

 9,001

 8,897

 7,043

 7,005

 5,280

 5,280

 6,585

 5,288

POWER

 243

 252

 236

 229

 216

 211

 218

 238

 232

 229

 267

 265

 290

 275

 302

 297

 250

 255

 254

 288

 285

 274

 268

 254

 253

 261

 279

 276

 277

 275

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

+189

-61

+119

+175

+149

+342

+32

+155

+99

+83

+128

+37

+233

+68

+367

+358

+399

+242

+313

+299

+144

+275

+219

+158

+222

+227

+111

+130

+302

+90

OR

 194

 211

 246

 209

 90

 125

 155

 189

 192

 188

 204

 203

 202

 201

 206

 182

 227

 262

 244

 178

 209

 160

 144

 133

 163

 128

 140

 187

 157

 129

C.F.S.

 .55

 .60

 .70

 .60

 .26

 .36

 .45

 .55

 .56

 .55

 .60

 .60

 .60

 .60

 .62

 .55

 .69

 .80

 .75

 .55

 .65

 .50

 .45

 .42

 .52

 .41

 .45

 .60

 .51

 .42

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .24

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR July 20, 2012

DAILY OPERATIONS

JUNE 2012 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -450,072 0 224,764 7,749 0 +5,604 5,458 16.47 .24

ACRE-FEET -450,072 0 445,819 15,370 0 +11,116 10,826

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 445,819

PACHECO TUNNEL 15,370 TOTAL 461,189

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2011 TO DATE = 7.06

 1,306,689

SPILL 0 .24

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
#### § 1815.0-5 Definitions.

*Major disaster* means any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, earthquake, drought, fire, or other catastrophe in any part of the United States, which, in the determination of the President, is or threatens to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance by the Federal Government to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby, and with respect to which the Governor of any State in which such catastrophe occurs or threatens to occur certifies the need for Federal disaster assistance and gives assurance of the expenditure of a reasonable amount of the funds of such State, its local governments, or other agencies for alleviating the damage, loss, hardship or suffering resulting from such catastrophe.
#### In the Matter of the Application and Petition of J. Edward Simmons and Others, Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, etc. (Hill View Reservoir, Section 1, Plots A and B.)

Order in so *872far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### §§48 to 50. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1), (2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733

Section 48, act Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §9, 22 Stat. 565, related to borrowing money on credit of Soldiers' Home.

Section 49, R.S. §§4814, 4821, related to persons entitled to membership in and benefits of Soldiers' Home.

Section 50, R.S. §4822, related to persons excluded from benefits of Soldiers' Home.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
### §142. Repealed. May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1(87), 45 Stat. 992

Section, act May 18, 1916, ch. 125, §27, 39 Stat. 158, related to annual reports to Congress of tribal financial matters.
#### § 670.600 Is government-paid transportation provided to Job Corps students?

Yes, Job Corps provides for the transportation of students between their homes and centers as described in policies and procedures issued by the Secretary.
September 24 , 2015 Memorandum to Docket ID # EPA-ROS-OAR-20 15-0493 Subject: From: Communication with the State ofColorado regarding questions on the proposed rule Jaslyn Dobrahner, Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 Sean Hackett, State ofColorado, contacted Jaslyn Dobrahner, EPA Region 8, via email on September 16, 2015 requesting a telephone call to discuss questions the state had on EPA's proposed rule Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Common Provisions andRegulation Number 3; Correction (80 FR 55055). A telephone call to discuss Colorado ' s questions took place on September 22, 2015 . Sean asked questions about following aspects ofthe proposed rule (Jaslyn's responses are in italics): • May 16, 2012 submittal, Part D, II .A.26.d. : Was it EPA's understanding that the state would revise this section in an upcoming revision? Yes, EPA isproposing not taking action on this revision with the understanding that this section will be revised in a future submittal. • May 16, 2012 submittal, Part A, II.D.1.ttt: Was this revision identified in the column ' Revision in disapproved section of SIP' ofTable 2 because EPA never approved this section and therefore could not approve the deletion ofthe section? Correct, because section Il.D. 1. ttt was never approved into thefederal SIP there is nothing/or EPA to take action on. • May 13, 2013 submittal, Part D, revisions in the 'Revision in disapproved section of SIP' column ofTable 2: Is that the same case for all ofthe revisions in the May 13, 2013 submittal that fall into this column? Yes, many of the state revisions to Part D of this submittal were deleting text that were never apart of thefederal SIP. In addition, in an earlier voicemail, Dena Wojtach from the State ofColorado , asked ifthere were any revisions being proposed for disapproval in this action. Jaslyn explained to Sean that there were no revisions being proposed for disapproval. Finally, Sean mentioned that the state may be submitting a comment on the exclusion oftertiary butyl acetate from the incorporation by reference material because a corresponding rulemaking made clarifications on how the State was going to handle tertiary butyl acetate. Jaslyn noted 40 CFR 51.1 OO(s)(5) for reference to the federal regulations regarding tertiary butyl acetate as a volatile organic compound and reiterated that this was one ofthe parts in the submittal that was neither in the current SIP or noted in the submittal as a revision. The call concluded shortly thereafter.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY HIGH

 239

 212

 204

 228

 212

 227

 196

 163

 166

 175

 194

 185

 189

 204

 197

 204

 208

 226

 275

 256

 169

 181

 164

 169

 166

 162

 247

 254

 234

 201

 188

 184

 196

 194

 180

 149

 142

 144

 155

 171

 174

 173

 179

 185

 188

 188

 201

 209

 174

 131

 125

 123

 141

 128

 126

 145

 170

 140

 209

 198

 196

 207

 203

 204

 171

 155

 154

 165

 181

 181

 184

 190

 192

 196

 200

 213

 238

 213

 149

 150

 148

 152

 152

 142

 187

 208

 176

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 10, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### Kaveh Bastani OSKOUI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kaveh Bastani Oskoui, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the *222decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. *Nahrvani v. Gonzales,*399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review in part, grant it in part, and remand.

An application for asylum must be denied if the alien has firmly resettled in another country. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). Substantial evidence supports the presumption that Oskoui was firmly resettled in Germany, where he lived for 19 years before entering the United States. *See Cheo v. INS,*162 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir.1998). Oskoui failed to rebut this presumption because he conceded that he could have renewed his status and applied' for permanent residence in Germany. *See id.*at 1230 (“[WJhere the duration and circumstances indicate that the asylum seeker may remain in the third country, then it is incumbent upon him to show the contrary.”). Oskoui also failed to show that the “conditions of his ... residence in that country were so substantially and consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refuge that he ... was not in fact resettled.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15(b). Oskoui may not overcome a finding of firm resettlement by showing that he is now unable to renew his previous status in Germany. *See Vang v. INS,*146 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1998).

We reject the government’s contention that Oskoui failed to exhaust his withholding and CAT claims because his brief before the BIA specifically challenged the IJ’s findings with respect to those claims. We agree with Oskoui that the IJ failed to consider the persecution Oskoui might face in Iran as a Muslim who has converted to Christianity and is therefore subject to severe punishment for apostasy. We therefore remand for farther proceedings on Oskoui’s withholding and CAT claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part; REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



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 I, Gary C. Huber, the Chief Financial Officer of Canyon Resources Corporation
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004, (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Date: May 24, 2004
    
    /s/Gary C. HuberGary C. HuberChief Financial Officer