alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,129.

#### Stark Lumber Company et al. *v.*Keystone Investment Company.

(20 P. [2d] 308)

Decided February 14, 1933.

Rehearing denied March 20, 1933.

Messrs. Stark & Irwin, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Oliver W. Toll, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

*267Mr. Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to quiet title to lots 36 and 37, Mock 109, Colfax Terrace, City and County of Denver. The issues are identical, and except as to some of the plaintiffs in error, it parallels *Stark Lumber Co. v. Keystone Inv. Co.,*92 Colo. 259, 20 P. (2d) 306, decided this day. On the authority of that decision the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Bou ok not participating.
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 31-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 6 of 6
(March 9, 1949.)

#### In the Matter of New York Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Respondent, against Jefferson Schenck et al., as Assessors and Trustees of the Village of Union Springs, Cayuga County, Appellants. In the Matter of New York Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Respondent, against Harry Nutt et al., as Assessors of the Town of Springport, Cayuga County, Appellants. In the Matter of New York Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Respondent, against Harry Nutt et al., as Assessors of the Town of Springport, Cayuga County, Appellants.

Present— Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.3017 Accumulation. ( a ) Originating materials from the territory of a Party that are used in the production of a good in the territory of another Party will be considered to originate in the territory of that other Party.
( b ) A good that is produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties by one or more producers is an originating good if the good satisfies the requirements of § 10.3014 and all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS.
#### § 122.3 Availability of forms.

The forms mentioned in this part may be purchased from the director of port of entry. A small quantity of each form is set aside by port directors for free distribution and official use.
#### John F. Butler v. Charles Alter and Others.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C . Agreement s Adopte d byth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n 

### OST-2010 - Of£ S

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

B YTH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR TASSOCIATIO N lAT AAGREEMEN T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D DOCKETOST - I & - OI^ S ACTIO NDAT E^^^f ^ "^oI O Thi s approva l an dgran t

o f antitrus t immunit y i s subject , wher e applicable , t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio ni s effectiv e afte r

7 day s unles s apetitio ni s file dunde r 1 4 CFR385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertake no nth e Department' s ow nmotion . I nvie w o f th e agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dth e availabilit y o f th e abov e opeeedure , th e 21-daypcriodj n1 4 CF R303.4 2 i s waived .

^ ii i ^- ^ t-^rrector , Offic e o f

Internationa l Aviatio n 

### 1 6 Jun e 201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s E . Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n 177 6 K.St . N.W . #12'^

Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44661

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JERIME AUSTIN BALDWIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 572

Filed: September 5, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of 

sixteen years, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jerime Austin Baldwin pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age 

of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(b). The district court imposed a unified sentence of 

fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court retained 

jurisdiction, and Baldwin was sent to participate in the rider program.

After Baldwin completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Baldwin

appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Baldwin’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-93 July 25, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATION AT INDIAN POINT 3 PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with New

York Power Authority officials on Wednesday, July 30, to discuss

an apparent violation of agency guidelines at the Indian Point 3

nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y.

At issue is an apparent failure to correctly translate

plant design basis information into emergency operating

procedures. Design basis refers to the plant’s original design

information, including the facility’s safety features, as well as

details of modifications made over the years. Specifically, the

repositioning of certain throttling valves in the component

cooling water system and other flow rate considerations at Indian

Point 3 were not properly translated into procedures.

Scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., the predecisional

enforcement conference will be held in the public meeting room at

the NRC Region 1 office in King of Prussia, Pa. Members of the

public may observe the session.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.

#
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69733-69734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0181 and DOT-OST-2010-0215]

Applications of National Air Cargo Group, Inc. D/B/A National 
Airlines for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010-11-05).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding National 
Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines fit, willing, and able, 
and awarding it certificates of public convenience and necessity to 
engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, 
property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
November 19, 2010.

[[Page 69734]]

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0181 and DOT-OST-2010-0215 and addressed to U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 
20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to 
the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785.

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-28620 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### Herman K. SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, Jr.; Ralph A. White; Edward W. Grannis, Jr.; George T. Griffin; William N. Farrell, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-7566.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 25, 2002.

Decided May 29, 2002,

Herman K. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Herman K. Simpson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) *382complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Simpson v. Butterfield,*No. CA-01-414-5-F (E.D.N.C. July 19, 2001). We deny Simpson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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.*
#### § 63.3 Requirement to be covered by a contract for flood insurance by June 1, 1988.

The requirement in section 1306(c)(4)(C)(i) of the Act that a structure be “covered by a contract for flood insurance under this title—(i) on or before June 1, 1988” was met if presentation of the appropriate premium and a properly completed flood insurance application form was made to the National Flood Insurance Program or a Write Your Own (WYO) Company on or before June 1, 1988.
EPA Conference Call with Region 1 States

January 19, 2012

Attendees:

EPA OUST: Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Tim Smith, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin 

Knighton, David Hamnett, Robin Hughes

EPA Region 1: Beth Deabay, Joan Coyle, Stuart Gray, Andrea Beland, Shri Parikh

States:

Paul Clark, CT DEEP

Ted Unkles, VT DEC

Andy O'Rouke, MA DEP

Robin Hughs, EPA HQ

Tom DeNormandie, MA DEP

Chuck Schwer, VT DEC

Vince Roy, ME 

David McCaskill, ME DEP

Bob Daniel, NH DES

Mike Juranty, NH DES

Susan Hanamoto, EPA R1

Philip Sullivan, MA 

Phil Wilde, CT DEEP

Diana McLaughlin, ME DEP

On this conference call, EPA gave an overview of the proposed changes to the UST regulations 

much like the comparison document available at www.epa.gov/oust. The states asked questions 

about the proposed regulations, focusing on state program approval, operation and maintenance, 

and repairs.
#### The Stewart Iron Works Company, Respondent, v. Ocean View Cemetery and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Another.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw the demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 142.6 Invoice requirements. ( a ) *Contents.* The commercial invoice, or the documentation acceptable in place of a commercial invoice in those instances listed in § 141.83(d) of this chapter, shall be furnished with the entry and before release of the merchandise is authorized. The commercial invoice or other acceptable documentation shall contain: ( 1 ) An adequate description of the merchandise.
( 2 ) The quantities of the merchandise.
( 3 ) The values or approximate values of the merchandise.
( 4 ) The appropriate eight-digit subheading from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. If the importer is uncertain of the appropriate subheading number, Customs shall assist him at his request. The port director may waive this requirement if he is satisfied that the information is not available at the time release of the merchandise is authorized.
( 5 ) The name and complete address of the foreign individual or firm who is responsible for invoicing the merchandise, ordinarily the manufacturer/seller, but where the manufacturer is not the seller, the party who sold the merchandise for export to the U.S., or made the merchandise available for sale.
( b ) *Information not required when filing entry.* In addition to the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the commercial invoice or substitute document filed with the entry documentation also may include any other invoice information required by §§ 141.86 through 141.89 of this chapter. However, if this information does not appear on the invoice or substitute document filed with the entry documentation, it shall be included in the invoice or substitute document delivered at the time the entry summary documentation is filed.
[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46821, Aug. 9, 1979; T.D. 80-26, 45 FR 3901, Jan. 21, 1980, as amended by T.D. 90-25, 55 FR 12343, Apr. 3, 1990; T.D. 90-78, 55 FR 40167, Oct. 2, 1990]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO 

QUASH JULY 23, 2023 SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Receiver’s Expedited Motion to Quash July 

23, 2023 Subpoena and for Protective Order [ECF No. 1620] (“Motion”). The Receiver has made 

a sufficient and proper showing in support of the relief requested in the Motion. Accordingly, for 

the reasons stated in the Motion, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The subpoena is 

improper because the Litigation Stay enjoining actions against the Receiver remains in place. 

[ECF No. 141] ¶¶ 32–33. The relief from Stay provided by the Court only extends to select actions 

against Eckert Seamans and/or John Pauciulo, and does not authorize discovery from or claims 

against the Receiver, or any of the Receivership Entities. See [ECF No. 1398] ¶ 1. Accordingly, 

the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on the Receiver on June 23, 2023 is hereby QUASHED. See 

FTC ex rel. Yost v. Educare Centre Servs., Inc., EP 19-CV-196-KC, 2020 WL 4334765, at *1 

(W.D. Tex. May 26, 2020) (quashing subpoena served on receiver). The Receiver’s request for 

the entry of a protective order is hereby GRANTED. Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, No. CIV SCase 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1623 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

90-0520, 2007 WL 4276554, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2007) (granting protective order of 

receiver). Plaintiffs in the case of Parker, et al. v. Pauciulo, et al., Case No. 210502334 (Phila Ct. 

Com. Pl. 2021) and their counsel are not permitted to take any discovery of the Court-appointed 

Receiver or his counsel, absent the entry of an order from this Court, which will only be entered

upon the showing of good cause. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37(a)(5), Plaintiffs in the case of Parker, et al. v. 

Pauciulo, et al., Case No. 210502334 (Phila Ct. Com. Pl. 2021) and their counsel shall pay the 

Receiver his reasonable expenses incurred in making the Motion, including attorneys’ fees, in an 

amount to be determined by the Court. The Receiver is INSTRUCTED to file a notice with the 

billing records detailing the time his counsel incurred in filing this Motion, by no later than July 

5, 2023. Thereafter, the Court will enter a subsequent order determining the amount of attorneys’ 

fees and costs to be paid to the Receiver pursuant to this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2023.

 ________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1623 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 127.24 Notice of sale. Notice of sale shall be sent on Customs Form 5251, 30 days prior to the date of sale, or 30 days prior to the transfer of merchandise to the place of sale, to the following: ( a ) Importer, if known; or
( b ) Consignee, if name and address can be ascertained; or
( c ) Shipper, his representative or agent, if merchandise is consigned to order or consignee cannot be ascertained; or
( d ) Warehouse transferee; or
( e ) Lienholder.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-23223-BB

DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own 

behalf and on behalf of all other similarly 

situated crew members working aboard 

BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

vessels,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD.,

PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR

LTD. INC., a/k/a PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

OPERATOR LTD. d/b/a BAHAMAS 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE, BPCL 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BAHAMAS 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE, LLC,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER [D.E. 26.] AND MARCH 18, 2020 ADDENDUM, 

WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE FORCED TO SIGN 

The Plaintiff, DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated crew members working aboard BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

vessels, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby notices the filing of Plaintiff Dragan 

Janicijevic’s employment contract, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, as requested by this Honorable 

Court on November 3, 2020 [D.E. 26]. Additionally, Plaintiff attaches the March 18, 2020,

addendum to Plaintiff’s employment contract that Defendants provided to Plaintiff and as alleged 

in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [D.E. 16, ¶ 22(i)], attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Dated: November 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Daniel W. Grammes By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
MICHAEL A. WINKLEMAN

Florida Bar No. 36719

mwinkleman@lipcon.com

DANIEL W. GRAMMES

Florida Bar No. 1010507

dgrammes@lipcon.com

ANDREW S. FREEDMAN

Florida Bar No. 091087

afreedman@lipcon.com

LIPCON, MARGULIES, 

ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

Adam Moskowitz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 984280 

adam@moskowitz-law.com

Howard M. Bushman, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0364230 

howard@moskowitz-law.com

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 

2 Alhambra Plaza 

Suite 601 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed November 3, 2020, 

with the Court via CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of 

record. 

By: /s/ Daniel W. Grammes______

DANIEL W. GRAMMES

Florida Bar No. 1010507

SERVICE LIST

Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd., et al.

Case No. 20-23223-CIV-BLOOM

Jeffrey E. Foreman

Florida Bar No. 240310

jforeman@fflegal.com

Catherine J. MacIvor

Florida Bar No. 932711

cmacivor@fflegal.com

FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2300

2 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 358-6555

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Louis LeCalsey, III, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 ofTufco Technologies, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2007                           /s/ Louis LeCalsey, III   Louis LeCalsey, III   President and Chief Executive Officer