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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2757 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an inflation adjustment of the dollar limitation on the exclusion of gain on the sale of 

a principal residence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an inflation adjustment of the dollar limitation on the 

exclusion of gain on the sale of a principal residence. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeowners’ Benefit 

5 Protection Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2757 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF LIMITATION ON EX2 CLUSION OF GAIN ON SALE OF PRINCIPAL 

3 RESIDENCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 121 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion 

6 of gain from sale of principal residence) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) EXCLUSION LIMITATION.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this 

10 subsection, the exclusion limitation is $250,000. 

11 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

12 case of any sale or exchange during any cal13 endar year after 2005, the dollar amount con14 tained in subparagraph (A) shall be increased 

15 by an amount equal to— 

16 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

17 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de18 termined under section 1(f)(3) for such 

19 calendar year by substituting ‘calendar 

20 year 2004’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub21 paragraph (B) thereof. 

22 If any increase under the preceding sentence is 

23 not a multiple of $1,000, such increase shall be 

24 rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.’’. 

25 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
3 

•HR 2757 IH 

1 (1) Paragraph (1) of section 121(b) of such 

2 Code is amended by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘the exclusion limitation’’. 

4 (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(b)(2) of 

5 such Code is amended by striking so much of such 

6 paragraph as precedes clause (i) and inserting the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(A) SPECIAL RULES FOR JOINT RE9 TURNS.—Paragraph (1) shall be applied by sub10 stituting ‘twice the exclusion limitation’ for ‘the 

11 exclusion limitation’ if—’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to sales and exchanges after De14 cember 31, 2005. 

Æ
1

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

RICHARD A. TAMOR, ESQ. 

TAMOR & TAMOR

1901 Harrison, 9th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 874-4170

Facsimile: (510) 874-4174

rtamor@TamorLaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant,

CHRISTOPHER G. BYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff,

CHRISTOPHER G. BYES,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. CR-09-00902 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING JULY 6, 2010

SENTENCING HEARING

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto and their respective

undersigned counsel, and with the consent of Defendant CHRISTOPHER G. BYES, that the

Sentencing Hearing currently scheduled for July 6, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. be continued to Tuesday

August 3, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

Last week on June 16, 2010, the Honorable Maria-Elena James appointed undersigned

counsel, Richard Tamor, as Advisory Counsel to the defendant in United States v. Ernesto

Floresca, CR09-01012 JSW. Mr. Floresca is scheduled for a 2-3 week trial beginning on July 6,

Case 3:09-cr-00902-WHA Document 15 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 3
2

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

2010, the same date as the currently scheduled Sentencing Hearing for Mr. Byes. It is

undersigned counsel's understanding that Judge White would like Advisory Counsel to be

present during all stages of the case, including trial. Therefore, Mr. Tamor will not be able to

prepare for and be available to argue a contested sentencing before this Court on July 6, 2010 at

2:00 p.m. because he will be preparing for and sitting as Advisory Counsel in trial for Mr.

Floresca on that date.

Undersigned counsel for Mr. Byes has consulted with Assistant United States Attorney

William Frentzen, the prosecutor assigned to this matter, about this conflict, and AUSA Frentzen

has no objection to continuing the sentencing hearing.

Therefore, with the Court's permission, the parties hereby stipulate to continue the

sentencing hearing date to August 3, 2010 at 2:00 p.m..

DATED: June 24, 2010 Tamor & Tamor

By: /s/ Richard Tamor

RICHARD TAMOR

Attorneys for Defendant

CHRISTOPHER G. BYES 

DATED: June 24, 2010 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

By: /s/ William Frentzen

WILLIAM FRENTZEN

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cr-00902-WHA Document 15 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 3
3

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

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN,

The Sentencing Hearing currently scheduled for July 6, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Is contintued to

August 3, 2010 at 2:00 p.m..

DATED:

HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

June 25, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cr-00902-WHA Document 15 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3
1

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 

L AFAYE TTE & 

K

U

M AGAI LLP A TTO R N EYS A T L A

W

100 S P E A R S T R EET , SUITE 6 0 0

SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105 

(415) 3 5 7-460 0 

F A X ( 415) 3 5 7-4 605

 

LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP

GARY T. LAFAYETTE (State Bar No. 088666) 

Email: glafayette@lkclaw.com 

SUSAN T. KUMAGAI (State Bar No. 127667) 

Email: skumagai@lkclaw.com 

REBECCA K. KIMURA (State Bar No. 220420) 

Email: rkimura@lkclaw.com 

100 Spear Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 357-4600 

Facsimile: (415) 357-4605 

MARVIN ANDERSON (State Bar No.130297) 

J. SCOTT PAISLEY (State Bar No. 94236) 

525 Market Street, Suite 2004 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 778-1355 

Facsimile: (415) 882-4458 

Email: ma1257@att.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN – 

NONBARGAINED PROGRAM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. CV 08-04058 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF

COUNSEL

QUILLER BARNES, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN - 

NONBARGAINED PROGRAM, 

Defendant.

STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

(Case No. CV 08-04058 MHP)

Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 141 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 2
2

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 

L AFAYE TTE & 

K

U

M AGAI LLP A TTO R N EYS A T L A

W

100 S P E A R S T R EET , SUITE 6 0 0

SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA 94105 

(415) 3 5 7-460 0 

F A X ( 415) 3 5 7-4 605

It is hereby stipulated and consented that Lafayette & Kumagai LLP, 100 Spear Street, 

Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94105 be hereby substituted in place and instead of Marvin 

Anderson and J. Scott Paisley, AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Department, 525 Market Street, Suite 

2004, San Francisco, California 94105, as attorneys for Defendant AT&T PENSION BENEFIT 

PLAN - NONBARGAINED PROGRAM in this action and that this substitution be entered into 

effect without further notice. 

DATED: June 3, 2010 LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP 

/s/ Susan T. Kumagai 

SUSAN T. KUMAGAI

 AT&T SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 

DATED: June 3, 2010 /s/ J. Scott Paisley

 J. SCOTT PAISLEY

STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

(Case No. CV 08-04058 MHP)

June 4, 2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-04058-EMC Document 141 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES BLACKWELL,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CHRISTOPHER P. FOLEY, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 08-01971 MHP

ORDER ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE’S 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

This matter having been referred to Magistrate Judge James Larson pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Civil Local Rule 72-3 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section

636(b)(1)(B) and (C) for the purpose of conducting a hearing, determining plaintiff’s motion for

attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded in this action, and submitting a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) to this court; the Magistrate Judge having conducted a hearing on the motions and having

filed his R&R; and the court, having fully reviewed the R&R, having considered the defendants’

objections and the response thereto, adopts the R&R in full. 

The Magistrate Judge’s decision is well-reasoned and explained. It is fully supported by the

record. Furthermore, defendants’ contention that plaintiff lacks standing is foreclosed by the

Consent Decree to which defendants agreed and which was approved by this court and filed on

January 14, 2010. That Decree provides that “the parties agree that attorney fees, litigation expenses

and costs will be awarded by motion and Order from the Court” and defendant further agreed “to

payment in full of those fees, expenses and costs.” The Magistrate Judge, correctly and

Case 3:08-cv-01971-MHP Document 63 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

appropriately, in accordance with the agreement of the parties themselves awarded fees, expenses

and costs in a reasonable amount. Therefore, the court adopts the R&R and imposes fees, expenses

and costs in the total amount of $105,147.00 as calculated and in accordance with the R&R. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED

in its entirety, the motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs is GRANTED, and in compliance

with the Consent Decree defendants shall pay in full the amount of $105,147.00 within twenty

(20) days of the date of this order.

Date: July 14, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-01971-MHP Document 63 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

ENDNOTES

Case 3:08-cv-01971-MHP Document 63 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51120 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODOLFO BARNAL-NAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1186-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rodolfo BarnalNava raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TSEGAI HAILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-08-4149 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FILED AUGUST 16, 2010,

CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR REVIEW

OF CLERK’S TAXATION OF COSTS

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Tsegai Haile’s “Letter to the USDC Clerk,” filed

August 16, 2010, in which plaintiff requests that “the Clerk correct, and vacate (re-tax) its

latest entry of costs taxed against appellant Tsegai Haile.” Because the above-referenced

document consists entirely of legal argument as to why the Clerk’s taxation of costs was

erroneous, the Court construes the document as a motion for review of the Clerk’s action,

pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having read and

considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.

First, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the bill of costs was timely filed because it was

filed fourteen days after the date on which judgment was entered against plaintiff. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Civil L.R. 54-1(a).

Second, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff was timely served with the bill of

costs, because plaintiff was represented by counsel on the date the bill of costs was filed

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 220 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

and plaintiff’s counsel was electronically served with the bill of costs fourteen days after the

date on which judgment was entered against plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1); Civil L.R.

54-1(a).

Third, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff’s filing of a notice of appeal from the

judgment did not divest the Clerk of jurisdiction to consider the bill of costs. See

Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., 677 F.2d 64 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding “costs may

be taxed after a notice of appeal is filed”).

Fourth, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff has failed to show that the bill of

costs, or any request contained therein, is “fraudulent” or that any defendant engaged in

“misconduct” in connection with the bill of costs or otherwise.

Lastly, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendants are “presum[ed]” to be entitled to

taxable costs, and plaintiff has failed to show that “severe injustice will result” if the

presumption is not rebutted. See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th

Cir. 2003) (holding “presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs for awarding

costs”); see also Document No. 217 (Ninth Circuit’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 220 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00615-CRB   Document 9   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T05:45:24-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Annual report for the Valles CalderaNational Trust for fiscal years ... [electronic resource].
 
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.167:
Item Number:0084-Q (online)
CGP System Number:000606605
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
July 31, 2017********
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0649 SAT Date: 7/9/2013 Print Date: 9/3/2014

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN ; Eco: 2 Health: Incin Pdt ; Eco:
Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 2 2 Incin Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG
Incompl Incin Pdt LIVER BLOOD MALE REPRO

ONCO IMMUNOSUPPRESS TERRATOXSummary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0649 FATE: MW = 11000 with 0.3% < 500 and 0.99% < 1000

.

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Incin Pdt P3B2 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes, based on physical/chemical p roperties. There is comcern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers.
For the potential incomplete incineration product, based on test data for the analogue concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral NOAEL 50 mg/kg, LOAEL 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for

Test Data: Submitted with the PMN:
Salmonella negative with and without activation; E.coli negative with and without activation

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = MW 11,000 with 1% < 1000 and 0.3 % < 500; p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
high concern for toxicity of incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
EXHIBIT 99.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MemberWorks Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary A. Johnson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and 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.



/s/ Gary A. Johnson
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
MemberWorks Incorporated
May 6, 2003