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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2185 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the nationwide 

observance of two minutes of silence each Veterans Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. LYNCH (for himself, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. JONES, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. NEAL, Mr. POCAN, and Ms. TSONGAS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the 

nationwide observance of two minutes of silence each 

Veterans Day. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Day Moment 

5 of Silence Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2185 IH

1 SEC. 2. OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY. 

2 (a) TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE.—Chapter 1 of title 

3 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following new section: 

5 ‘‘§ 145. Veterans Day 

6 ‘‘The President shall issue each year a proclamation 

7 calling on the people of the United States to observe two 

8 minutes of silence on Veterans Day in honor of the service 

9 and sacrifice of veterans throughout the history of the Na10 tion, beginning at— 

11 ‘‘(1) 3:11 p.m. Atlantic standard time; 

12 ‘‘(2) 2:11 p.m. eastern standard time; 

13 ‘‘(3) 1:11 p.m. central standard time; 

14 ‘‘(4) 12:11 p.m. mountain standard time; 

15 ‘‘(5) 11:11 a.m. Pacific standard time; 

16 ‘‘(6) 10:11 a.m. Alaska standard time; and 

17 ‘‘(7) 9:11 a.m. Hawaii-Aleutian standard 

18 time.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 for chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 

21 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘145. Veterans Day.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NOS.3:97cr81-01/RV; 3:97cr92/RV and

3:97cr103/RV

CHRISTOPHER SUMMERS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on May 1, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION to void Judgment, Order or Proceeding, under Title 28 U.S.C.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(4)(5)(6) et seq. 

Filed by Defendant on 3/30/2007 Doc.# 51; 31; 30

RESPONSES:

 None on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 1st day of

 May , 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cr-00103-RV-CJK Document 31 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Louise Snyder, an Incompetent Person, Now Deceased, by Max Feigin, Committee of the Said Louise Snyder, and Attorney for Said Committee, Appellant, v. Louis J. Lefkowitz, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

In this proceeding to settle the final account of the committee of a deceased person the committee, also an attorney, appeals from so much of an order entered October 20, 1966 as denied him an additional fee for services rendered and limited his compensation to the statutory commissions. In our opinion the services rendered were in excess of those normally or usually performed by an executor or administrator and appellant should be allowed a reasonable sum as additional compensation (Mental Hygiene Law, § 109, subd. (1); *Matter of Belaquer,*19 A D 2d 841). The order appealed from is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant and allow appellant the sum of $1,000 as and for a legal fee and for disbursements incurred, payable out of the estate of the incompetent, and by modifying accordingly the second decretal paragraph of said order. As so modified the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. It is clear that the sum received was not adequate to compensate appellant, an attorney, for the services rendered (cf. *Matter of Townsend,*24 A D 2d 93, concurring opinion Eager, J.). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Tilzer, McNally and McGivern, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             FRONTIER ENERGY CORP.
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



      The undersigned, Robert Genesi, in his capacities as President and Acting
Chief Financial Officer of Frontier Energy  Corp.  does hereby certify that the
Form 10-KSB of Frontier Energy Corp.  for  the  year  ended  December 31,  2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d))  and  that  the information
contained  in  such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Frontier Energy Corp.

      This certification  is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose of
18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.


      Executed this 2nd day of April, 2008.

                                  /s/  Robert Genesi
				  ------------------
                                  Robert Genesi
                                  President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                  Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit (32.1)





HARLEYSVILLE GROUP INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Harleysville Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Browne, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  March 11, 2005 |  | /s/ MICHAEL L. BROWNE                            
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | Michael L. Browne                                
|                      |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 15

- 3853

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ADVANTAGE MEDICAL TRANSPORT INC; SERGE SIVCHUK, Appellants

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (District Court Criminal Nos. 1

- 12

- cr

- 00004

- 001 and 1

- 12

- cr

- 00004

- 002) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

AMENDED ORDER AMENDING OPINION

By order entered August 16, 2017, the Court directed that the Not Precedential opinion filed on June 21, 2017 be amended with respect to the identity of the

beneficiaries and the amount of loss attributa b l e to those beneficiaries.

Upon further review it has been determined that no changes shall be made to any of the dollar amounts listed in Part II(A)(1) of the opinion. The opinion will be amended only as to the recitation of the relevant beneficiaries.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion is amended as follows:

Part II (A)(1) at page 9 , th e recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra Bo., and James R.” is amended to read , “Sandra Bo., David T., and Michael

M.”Part II (A)(2) at page 12, the recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra Bo., and James T., is amended to read “Sandra Bo., David T., and Michael

M.”

Part III at page 23 , the recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra Bo., and

James R.” is amended to read “Sandra Bo., Davi d T., and Michael M.”

Amendment of this not

- precedential opinion is so ordered and these errors ar e hereby corrected.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron,

Clerk

Date: August 29, 2017
(December 21,1966)

#### In the Matter of Irwin M. Gross, Petitioner.

Motion by petitioner for reconsideration of this court’s order, dated June 20, 1966, which denied his application for admission to the Bar. Motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3: 97cr111 LAC

YVEMYRTH ST. HILAIRE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MARCH 7, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on3/6/08 Doc.# 352

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 20

th day of

March, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing, the defendant was held accountable by the Court for 9.3

kilograms of cocaine base which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Pursuant

to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table at §2D1.1

assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base.

Since the defendant’s base offense level is unchanged, he is not eligible for any

reduction in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00111-LC-MD Document 353 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit  21.1

                          Subsidiaries of Registrant
                          --------------------------

     Subsidiary
     ----------

Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation
Health Management Associates, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation
Sebring Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Mooresville Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Marathon HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Louisburg HMA, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Orlando HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Polk HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Biloxi HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Health Management Investments, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Gaffney HMA, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation
Durant HMA, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation
Van Buren HMA, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation
Hamlet HMA, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
Health Management Associates of West Virginia, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation
Paintsville Hospital Company, a Kentucky Corporation
Coffee Hospital Management Associates, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation
Riverview Regional Medical Center, Inc., an Alabama Corporation
Topeka HMA, Inc., a Kansas Corporation
Haines City HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Natchez Community Hospital, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Sebastian Hospital, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Tequesta HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Punta Gorda HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Hartsville HMA, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation
Statesboro HMA, Inc., a Georgia Corporation
Clarksdale HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Midwest City HMA, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation
Brandon HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Anniston HMA, Inc., an Alabama Corporation
Little Rock HMA, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation
Meridian HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Meridian HMA Nursing Home, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Meridian HMA Clinic Management Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
River Oaks Hospital, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
ROH, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
River Oaks Management Company, a Mississippi Corporation
Hernando HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Jackson HMA, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Jackson HMA North Medical Office Building Inc., a Mississippi Corporation
Key West HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Key West HMA Physician Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Lancaster HMA, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
Lancaster HMA Physician Management, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
Rose City HMA, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
Pasco HMA, Inc., a Florida Corporation
Statesville HMA, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation

                                      65
#### §§ 28.508-28.510 [Reserved]
#### Chicken Delight Eastern, Inc., Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Wenke et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 21, 1966 and made upon an order of said court which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, affirmed, without costs *(Unexcelled Laundry System*v. *Esemann,*248 App. Div. 610, affd. 273 N. Y. 555). At the time the release of June 13, 1966 was executed and delivered, there was no existing controversy between the parties. Therefore, the release of defendant Wenke from all liability under the contract and the cancellation of the contract in its entirety could only mean a release of possible future liability under the restrictive covenant. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a trial on the issue of release, with the following memorandum: The plaintiff corporation issued a franchise on April 1, 1963 to defendant Wenke for the operation of a take-out food business. The franchise agreement contained a restrictive covenant which prevented Wenke from competing with plaintiff within a described market area for a period of one year following the breach or termination of the agreement. When Wenke subsequently became desirous of selling his business to one Volpe, Wenke and plaintiff entered into a release so that a new franchise could be issued to Volpe. The agreement released Wenke “from all liability under contract * «. [described] which is cancelled in its entirety.” It cannot be held as a matter of law that the release was intended to apply to the restrictive covenant, *538which was not a liability *“*under the contract ”, but rather a collateral obligation which could not spring into being until the termination or breach of the contract. In *Unexcelled Laundry System*v. *Esemann*(248 App. Div. 610, affd. 273 N, Y. 555), in which a similar problem was presented, the release, by its terms, applied to all *“*covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises * * * claims and demands, whatsoever, in law or in equity”, which the releasor “ shall or may have ” against the releasee. While such a release was held to have the effect of vitiating the restrictive covenant because of its all-inclusive language as to future rights under the restrictive covenant, the narrow release before us was obviously not intended to have that effect, but related merely to the performance of the contract itself. “Whether a release is to be treated as including all possible claims depends upon the purpose for which the release is given” *(Simon*v. *Simon,*274 App. Div. 447, 449).
#### § 29.2410 Rule 19.

Crude leaves shall not be included in any grade of any color except green, light green, or dark green. Any lot containing 20 percent or more of crude leaves shall be designated nondescript.

[45 FR 47115, July 14, 1980]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                        216,297
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 24,267
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   707,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,308,099
<PP&E>                        574,861
<DEPRECIATION>                208,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,817,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         268,081
<BONDS>                       8,434,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         402,298
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      475,988
<OTHER-SE>                    (7,763,345)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,817,072
<SALES>                       18,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              27,441
<CGS>                         157,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,699,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            695,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,525,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,525,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,525,340)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.08)


</TABLE>
#### Sterritt *vs.*Lockhart &c.

Gas's

-Error *to the*Simpson Circuit.

*Re-hearing.*

*Critenden*and *.Morehecid,*for plaintiffs ;• Brmen,. for defendants.

October *17.*

<t¡Jusiiee Bobertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court?

-3’uxlge Underwood did not *»it.

As the only two members of the court, who can adjudicate *in this case,*do not concur in opinion, (one being for a reversal and the other for an affirmance of the judgment below,) and as the legal effect of granting a re-hearing was a revocation of the former opinion (see Lipscomb vs. Grubs, III Bibb, *392,) therefore the*necessary consequence must be, that the former opinion cannot be the judgment of this court, hut remains revoked, and the judgment of the circuit court stands affirmed, in consequence of the equal division of this court.
Exhibit 10.5
 CONFIDENTIAL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
 W. Norbert Whitlock
 R E C I T A L S
 Executive Vice President Operations
     Termination June 30, 2009
 Severance Payments
 Twenty-Six (26) Weeks Thirteen (13)
  Employee Benefits
     Vacation
 
 Page 1 of 5




---



##### 



General Release
  Receipt of Wages and Commissions
 Voluntary and Knowing Agreement
 Compliance with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
   
 Page 2 of 5




---



##### 



Date
  Non-Disclosure
 Property Return
 Non-Solicitation
 Non-Disparagement
 
 Page 3 of 5




---



##### 



Confidentiality and Trade Secrets
 Breach
 Cooperation with Litigation
 Misconduct
 Choice of Law
 Modifications
 Integration
 
 Page 4 of 5




---



##### 



Severability and Waiver
 Effective Date
 Fees and Costs
 Counterparts
  AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES LLC6/26/09
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard W. SpriggleDatePosition:
    
    SVP Human ResourcesW. NORBERT WHITLOCK6/26/09
    
    
    
    /s/ W. Norbert WhitlockDate
    
    Signature6/26/09
    
    
    
    /s/ Richard M. BrunsDate
    
    Witness
 
 Page 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM CMC
SECURITIES CORPORATION I'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               50
<BONDS>                                        380,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                        (60)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,790
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,202
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (24)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (24)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (24)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE>            5
       
<S>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>               749,946
<SECURITIES>         0   
<RECEIVABLES>        292,751    
<ALLOWANCES>         0
<INVENTORY>          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>     0
<PP&E>               13,463,323    <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>        3,446,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>       11,760,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>0
<BONDS>              8,826,677    <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>0
<PREFERRED>          0
<COMMON>             2,683,886    <F3>
<OTHER-SE>           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 11,760,222
<SALES>              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>     2,402,000    <F4>
<CGS>                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>        1,136,487    <F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>     0                          
<LOSS-PROVISION>     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>   874,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>      0
<INCOME-TAX>         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>  0
<DISCONTINUED>       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>      0
<CHANGES>            0
<NET-INCOME>         391,403
<EPS-PRIMARY>        0
<EPS-DILUTED>        0

<FN>
<F1>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F2>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F3>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F4>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F5>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ottawa Savings Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary L. OcepekGary L. OcepekPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2009/s/ Jon L. KranovJon L. KranovSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2009




24