alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irving Bard, Respondent, v. Helen R. Bard, Appellant.

In an action for a judgment declaring that plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife and that a decree obtained by her (the defendant) in Alabama divorcing her from plaintiff is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over him, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 30, 1961, which denied her motion, pursuant to subdivision 4 of *802rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is an existing final judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction rendered on the merits determining the same cause of action between the parties (see 29 Misc 2d 453). Order affirmed, without costs. Despite the recitals contained in the Alabama decree, the courts of this State are not required to give full faith and credit to a foreign divorce decree where the plaintiff in the foreign divorce action was not a permanent resident of the foreign State and where the appearance on behalf of the defendant spouse either was not authorized or was procured through fraud, coercion or duress *(Stauffer*v. *Stauffer,*26 Misc 2d 254, 257, and cases there cited). In support of his contention that the answer, waiver and appearance filed in his behalf in the foreign divorce action were not authorized, the plaintiff asserts: (1) that the subject “Power of Attorney and Contract of Employment” was delivered conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled; and (2) that, in any event, the said authorization or power of attorney was revoked by him prior to the time that the defendant (his wife) departed for Alabama to obtain the divorce. These assertions are denied by defendant. Under the circumstances, the issues thus raised are required to be resolved by a plenary trial. Since the issues in this action will have to be tried, and since the record reveals that after defendant’s procurement of the Alabama divorce decree she married a third party with whom she presently resides, we deem it appropriate to direct attention to the fact that such third party must be joined as a party defendant in this action for a declaratory judgment; he is indispensable; without him no effective judgment may be rendered *(Varrichio*v. *Varrichio,*269 App. Div. 678; *Lauricella*v. *Lauricella,*13 Misc 2d 799). The defendant’s time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23 -- CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8, Registration 
Statement Nos. 33-28177, 33-42510, 33-49614, 33-49616, 333-02199, 333-18549 
and 333-27249 dated May 4, 1989, August 23, 1991, July 10, 1992, July 10, 
1992, April 3, 1996, December 23, 1996 and May 16,1997, respectively, and in 
Registration Statement No. 33-57780 on Form S-3 dated February 3, 1993, of 
our report dated January 22, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial 
statements and schedule of Empi, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 12, 1999
1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 33 5- CR DUS T I N M. F I NL E Y AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 8 OF T ARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s“ M o t i o n F o rVo l u n t a ryDi s mi s s a l Of A p p e a l .” T h e m o ti o n co m p l i e s w i th rul e 4 2 .2 (a) of th e rul e s o f ap p e l l a te pr ocedu r e. Tex. R. A pp. P. 42 . 2( a) . N o deci si on of t hi s courthavi ng been del i ver ed bef or e w e r ec ei ved t hi s m ot i on, w e g r antt he m ot i on and di sm i sst he a p p e a l . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .2 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua ry 19, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 724 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 724

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Federal Power Act to modernize authorizations for 
                    necessary hydropower approvals.

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

SECTION 1. MODERNIZING AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NECESSARY HYDROPOWER 
              APPROVALS.

    (a) Preliminary Permits.--Section 5 of the Federal Power Act (16 
U.S.C. 798) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``three'' and inserting 
        ``4''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``Commission may extend the period 
                of a preliminary permit once for not more than 2 
                additional years beyond the 3 years'' and inserting the 
                following: ``Commission may--
            ``(1) extend the period of a preliminary permit once for 
        not more than 4 additional years beyond the 4 years'';
                    (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) after the end of an extension period granted under 
        paragraph (1), issue an additional permit to the permittee if 
        the Commission determines that there are extraordinary 
        circumstances that warrant the issuance of the additional 
        permit.''.
    (b) Time Limit for Construction of Project Works.--Section 13 of 
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) is amended in the second sentence 
by striking ``once but not longer than two additional years'' and 
inserting ``for not more than 8 additional years,''.
    (c) Obligation for Payment of Annual Charges.--Any obligation of a 
licensee or exemptee for the payment of annual charges under section 
10(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803(e)) for a project that 
has not commenced construction as of the date of enactment of this Act 
shall commence not earlier than the latest of--
            (1) the date by which the licensee or exemptee is required 
        to commence construction; or
            (2) the date of any extension of the deadline under 
        paragraph (1).

            Passed the Senate June 28, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 724

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend the Federal Power Act to modernize authorizations for 
                    necessary hydropower approvals.
```
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12689

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

NICOLAS SAINT SURIN, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A200-456-785

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-12689 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/24/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 24-12689

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Saint Surin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) June 26, 2024 order finding that he withdrew 

his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying asylum 

and ordering removal. The government moves to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Surin has not filed a response to the motion, but he has filed a motion for stay of removal.

The 30-day time limit required Surin to file a petition of review of the BIA’s June 26, 2024 order by July 26, 2024. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1). Surin’s petition for review was not filed until August 

12, 2024 at the earliest, which is the date that he signed it. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii). Thus, the petition is untimely and cannot invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone 

v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

677 F.3d 1043, 1045 (11th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

USCA11 Case: 24-12689 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/24/2024 Page: 2 of 2
Office

des transports

du Canada

Canadian

Transportation

Agency

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

X40, suite 6402

400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by US air

carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada in accordance with the provisions of

the Air Transport Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, signed March

12, 2007 and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to that Agreement, on the basis of

comity and reciprocity.

Yours sinCerelY) [J

J ,J~'

, II U v.JUJ",J.. rJJ...!

atherine MacDonald

Manager International Agreements, Division B

cc Robert Ready, ANA

Marc Rioux, ACEA..

Ottawa (Ontario) K1A ON9

www.otc.gc.ca

Ottawa Ontario K1A ON9

www.cta.gc.ca

Canada
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10896

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cr-80161-RKA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

KASHUS DAVIS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 30, 2020)

Before NEWSOM, ANDERSON, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kashus Davis pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See

18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court 

erroneously ruled that he qualified for a sentence enhancement under the Armed 

USCA11 Case: 20-10896 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Davis argues that his prior 

convictions under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1) are not predicate “serious drug 

offense[s]” for purposes of the ACCA because the Florida statute “does not require 

an element of mens rea regarding the illicit nature of the controlled substance.” 

Prior panel precedent forecloses Davis’ argument. We held in Smith that 

Florida Statutes § 893.13(1) is a “serious drug offense” for purposes of the ACCA. 

United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014). We also held that a 

“serious drug offense” need not include an element of mens rea regarding the illicit 

nature of the controlled substance. Id. at 1267–68. 

We remain bound by Smith unless and until it is overruled by either the 

Supreme Court or us en banc. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 

(11th Cir. 2001). Because that has not happened, we affirm Davis’ sentence.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10896 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 Page: 2 of 2
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 810 

AN ACT 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property 

in Christian County, Missouri, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 810 ES

1 SECTION 1. RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Riverside Bridge Project is 

3 authorized to be carried out notwithstanding— 

4 (1) any agreement entered unto under, or re5 striction pursuant to, section 404(b)(2) of the Rob6 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As7 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(b)(2)); or 

8 (2) any easement or other Federal restriction 

9 pursuant to that Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) that 

10 requires the covered property to be maintained for 

11 open space, recreation, or wetland management. 

12 (b) CONDITIONS.—As a condition of the authoriza13 tion under subsection (a)— 

14 (1) Christian County, Missouri, or an assignee 

15 shall— 

16 (A) carry out the Riverside Bridge Project 

17 in a manner that ensures that no flood damage 

18 attributable to the Project occurs; and 

19 (B) be liable for any such flood damage 

20 that does occur; and 

21 (2) the Federal Government shall not be liable 

22 for future flood damage that is caused by the 

23 Project. 

24 (c) DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROHIBITED.—No future 

25 disaster assistance from any Federal source may be pro-
3 

†S 810 ES

1 vided with respect to the covered property or any improve2 ments thereon. 

3 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following defini4 tions apply: 

5 (1) COVERED PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘covered 

6 property’’ means the property— 

7 (A) in Christian County, Missouri; 

8 (B) conveyed to such County by the River9 side Inn, Inc.; and 

10 (C) that is approximately 1.5 acres and 

11 482 lineal feet adjacent to the westerly line of 

12 Riverside Road to the center of Finley Creek. 

13 (2) RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT.—The term 

14 ‘‘Riverside Bridge Project’’ means the project to 

15 construct, maintain, and operate a bridge on and 

16 over the covered property. 

Passed the Senate August 3, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 810 

AN ACT 

To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain 

other purposes. property in Christian County, Missouri, and for
### CHECKLIST III 

# ( TRANSPORTER REQUIREMENTS 

# t FEDERAL REQUI REMENT.
. RCRA CITE STATE AUTHORITY IF 

### DIFFERENT FROM FEDERAL STATUTE REGULATION' REQUIREMENT 

### EXPLAIN SUBPART A - GENERAL Washing ton Adrninis tra tive Code:'**(~AC)'** ch .173-,303 

### SCOPE transportation standards 263.10(a) on-site transportation excluded ot-her regulations applicable 263.10(b) 263.10(c) .' importers of waste 263.10(c)Cl) mi xer.s of waste _­ . 263.10(c)(2)**f~A** 

### IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 173-303-240(2) 

## ..

,. (4 ) (3) (3) (a) (3) (b) - 

# I

.. . ".

' , . .

- .. -

.. 

### -­



# . .. -
, 

## .

number reouired 263.11(a) (1 ) application' 263.11(b) o' (1) ;. 

### TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS exception 

# 1253.1i -240(5) 

### SUBPART B - COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANIFEST SYSTEM AND: RECORDKEEPING·­



### . MAN!FEST SYSTEM manifest required 263.20(a) 173-303-250(1)

.. , siQnature**~nd** date 263.20(b) (2) (3) (4 ) I accompanies waste delivery to another transporters
'. water shipments 263.20(c) 263.20(d) 263.20(e) (7) delivered by water 263.20(e)(1) - (7) (a) 'shippinQ paper 263.20(e)(2) (7) (b) sionature of owner 263.20(e)(3) (7) (c) 

# I (7) (d) signature of : transporter 263.20(e)(4) copies retained 263.20(e)(5) (7) (e)


### . A-19

### CHECKLIST 111 (continued) 

# c C FEDERAL REQUIREMENT· .RCRA CITE STATE AUTHORITY 

### IF DIFFERENT 

### FROM FEDERAL REQUIREMENT, 

### EXPLAIN

, 

### STATUTE REGULATION rail shipments 263.20(f) 173-303-250 (8) (8)(a) initial rail t ransp.orter 263.20(f)(1) shippino paper 263.20(,()(2) (b) (c) (d) delivery to facility 263.20(,()(3) delivery to non-rail transporter 263.20(f)(4) acceptance from rail transporter 263.20(f)(5) (e) _.". .. exporters 263.20(.q) (9) (9)(a) date 263.20(0)(1)

.. - "-­
-­ s i onature 263.20(g)(2) (b) (c) 

## • return COPy 263.20(0)(3) 

# (;( COMPLIANCE WITH 

### MANIFEST \ . uantity 263.21(a) desionated facilitv 263.21(a)(1) alternate racilit l 263.21(a)(2 ·transporter 263.21(a (3) place outside 

### u.S. inability to deliver/ revision of manifest 263.21(a)(4) 263.21(b) 

### RECORDKEEPING

I
.. . retain co ies water .transporter 263.22(a) 263.22(b) rail trans orter 263.22(c)
ex orter 263.22(d) 263.22(e) -250(5) (5)(a) (b) .(c)

(d) -250(6) 173-303-260(1) (2)(a) (2) (a&b) (3) (4)

A-20

# (

# • FEDERAL REQUIREMENT· RCRA CHECKLIST III (continued)


### CITE STATE AUTHORITY STATUTE REGDLATION 

### IF DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT FROM FEDERAL EXPLAIN SUBPART C - HAZARDOUS WASTE -. - 

### DISCHARGES IMMEDIATE ACTION transporter action 263.30(a) 173-303':'270 

## .. removal/authorization bv 

### official duties of transporter 263.30(bY263.30(c) .-­ 

# -:fZg (3) (b) 

# I

-­

- ­ -270 -270 (2) -270 (3) 

# I**-~270(4)** 

### notice 263. 3-0(

# c) (1)

- 

### report water transporter 263-.**~O(c)·(2)** 26:3. 

### 30-(dY - DISCHARGE CLEAN-UP

# ..:.t.:...;ra;;;.;.n.;.;.s.z;;..p~or_t_e_r_d_u_t ... y

# 1-.,;2~6;...,;;3~~-..;;..31~- -

__ ._-

# _-_:~I __-=-=-"::';....L.li;,,",-(_3_)_(a_)_(_ij
_



### A-21
# November 2023 FOIA Log
SCWC-15-0000548

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000548 19-OCT-2016 08:50 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff -Appellee,

vs.

YOSHIRO SANNEY, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

(CAAP-15-0000548; CR. NO. 10 -1-1570)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Yoshiro Sanney ’s application
for writ of certiorari filed on September 2, 2016, is hereby
accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties
will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, October 19, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
15.406-3 Documenting the negotiation. ( a ) The contracting officer shall document in the contract file the principal elements of the negotiated agreement. The documentation (e.g., price negotiation memorandum (PNM)) shall include the following: ( 1 ) The purpose of the negotiation.
( 2 ) A description of the acquisition, including appropriate identifying numbers (e.g., RFP No.).
( 3 ) The name, position, and organization of each person representing the contractor and the Government in the negotiation.
( 4 ) The current status of any contractor systems (e.g., purchasing, estimating, accounting, and compensation) to the extent they affected and were considered in the negotiation.
( 5 ) If certified cost or pricing data were not required in the case of any price negotiation exceeding the certified cost or pricing data threshold, the exception used and the basis for it.
( 6 ) If certified cost or pricing data were required, the extent to which the contracting officer— ( i ) Relied on the certified cost or pricing data submitted and used them in negotiating the price;
( ii ) Recognized as inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent any certified cost or pricing data submitted; the action taken by the contracting officer and the contractor as a result; and the effect of the defective data on the price negotiated; or
( iii ) Determined that an exception applied after the data were submitted and, therefore, considered not to be certified cost or pricing data.
( 7 ) A summary of the contractor's proposal, any field pricing assistance recommendations, including the reasons for any pertinent variances from them, the Government's negotiation objective, and the negotiated position. Where the determination of a fair and reasonable price is based on cost analysis, the summary shall address each major cost element. When determination of a fair and reasonable price is based on price analysis, the summary shall include the source and type of data used to support the determination.
( 8 ) The most significant facts or considerations controlling the establishment of the prenegotiation objectives and the negotiated agreement including an explanation of any significant differences between the two positions.
( 9 ) To the extent such direction has a significant effect on the action, a discussion and quantification of the impact of direction given by Congress, other agencies, and higher-level officials (*i.e.,* officials who would not normally exercise authority during the award and review process for the instant contract action).
( 10 ) The basis for the profit or fee prenegotiation objective and the profit or fee negotiated.
( 11 ) Documentation of fair and reasonable pricing.
( b ) Whenever field pricing assistance has been obtained, the contracting officer shall forward a copy of the negotiation documentation to the office(s) providing assistance. When appropriate, information on how advisory field support can be made more effective should be provided separately.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 53146, Aug. 30, 2010]
FY 2022 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT 153 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OTHER INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)

Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

and Management Assurances

The following tables provide a summarized report on the Department’s financial statement audit and its management 

assurances. For more details, the auditors’ report can be found beginning on page 104 and the Department’s management 

assurances on page 25.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Audit Opinion: Disclaimer of Opinion 

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

Total Material Weaknesses 1 1 0 1 1

SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting—Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) 2

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

The Department had no material weaknesses in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Operations—FMFIA 2 

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance With Financial Management System Requirements—FMFIA 4

Statement of Assurance: The Department systems conform to financial management system requirements.

Nonconformances Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Nonconformances 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

1. System Requirements No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

2. Federal Accounting Standards No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

3. U.S. Standard General Ledger at Transaction Level No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period April 15, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 23, 2005



/s/ Raymond F. LancyRaymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)