alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(p)


THE GILLETTE COMPANY SENIOR EXECUTIVE

FINANCIAL PLANNING PROGRAM

REVISED OCTOBER 2004



	 	 	 
	Eligibility
	 	Chairman/CEO of the Company and his/her direct reports who are generally treated as United States employees for employment and benefit purposes.
	 
	 	 
	Program Benefit
	 	Reimbursement by Company of financial counseling, estate planning, tax preparation, retirement and other related financial planning services for the participant and his/her spouse, domestic partner or dependent children.
	 
	 	 
	Available Providers
	 	Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm selected by participant.
	 
	 	 
	Excluded Services
	 	Brokerage or other investment transaction fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums; services for individuals other than participant, his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children.
	 
	 	 
	Maximum Benefit
	 	During employment:  Chairman/CEO - $25,000/other participants - $11,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year.
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	Following retirement under a Company-sponsored retirement plan:  $6,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year, over the participant's life.
	 
	 	 
	Tax Effects
	 	Program benefits received by participant will be includable in compensation.  Company will provide tax gross-up for Federal and State income taxes and FICA Medicare tax.
	 
	 	 
	Termination of Participation
	 	Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases to be an executive officer of the Company, unless participant qualifies for retirement benefits under this program.
	 
	 	 
	Program Amendment and Termination
	 	At discretion of the Company, by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, without requirement of advance notice.
	 
	 	 
	Effective Date
	 	July 1, 2003 (for the Chairman/CEO of the Company and his/her direct reports in such positions on or after such date).
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

44) IV-E-32 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:28 AM Sheet 44 of 105 
P.2 

RADIAN A-83-27 

CORPORATIO N T„ 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT - INDUSTRIAL BOILER S02 

DATE: November 4, 1986 

TO: Jim Coulthard 

Riley Stoker Corporation 

Post Office Box 547 

Worcester, MH 01613 

(617) 852-7100 

FROM: J. Thomas Waddell 

SUBJECT: FBC at General Motors, Ft. Wayne, IN 

Mr. Coulthard provided the following information: 

o 2 FBC units; 150,000 pph each 

o start-up in December 1986 Ac-fw/>L- WITI4L- s7*/er-^»" /-^ oc w H/7 . 

o circulating bed 

o burns bituminous coal 

o did not know sulfur content or design SO- removal 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13001-.'Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100 
P.3 

RILEY RILEY STOKER 

CORPORATION 

POST OFFICE BOX W* 2040 

WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01613 -204 0 

(617)852-7100 TELEX 920426 

July 14, 198/ 

J. Thomas Waddell 

Radian Corporation 

Progress Center 

3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy. 

P.O. Box 13000 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RE: Your letter of June 29, 1987 

Dear Mr. Waddell: 

Please find enclosed copies of the telephone call reports that 

you sent to me. The information pertaining to our University of 

Missouri contract is confirmed as being correct. I have annotated 

the information pertaining to our General Motors contract to bring 

it up to date and provide missing data. 

Please contact me should you need any further information. 

^ C^jUtLsm-mj . 

Sincerely, 

RILEY STOKER CORPORATION 

Jim Coulthard 

JC/kaj 

Enclosures 

An Ashland Technology Company
EX-10.6
                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") is made this
15th day of January, 2003, and shall supplement and amend that
Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), dated January 15, 2003, entered
into by and between Synthetic Turf Corporation of America, a Nevada
corporation ("Company"), and Gary Borglund, ("Employee").

     All terms and conditions of the Agreement not otherwise amended
by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

     The value of the shares of common stock as set forth in Section
4.0 of the Agreement shall be valued at $0.005, instead of the
value of $0.02 as set forth in the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be
executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

                                       EMPLOYER:

                                       SYNTHETIC TURF CORPORATION OF AMERICA


                                       By: /s/  Mark Crist
                                       Mark Crist, Director


                                       EMPLOYEE:


                                       /s/  Gary Borglund
                                       Gary Borlgund
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.515 [Reserved]
Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK   Document 3536   Filed 03/25/09   Page 1 of 1
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  Y EWHALASHET A BEBE , Petitioner, No. 05-76201

v. Agency No.



#  A26-810-941 M ICHAEL B. M UKASEY , Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

# 
Filed January 25, 2008

ORDER
KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

1543PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson/West.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2057 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

the areas comprising Bay County Unit P–31P in Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2013 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System the areas comprising Bay County Unit 

P–31P in Florida. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM OF AREAS 

5 COMPRISING BAY COUNTY UNIT P-31P, FLOR6 IDA. 

7 The areas comprising John H. Chafee Coastal Bar8 rier Resources System Bay County Unit P–31P in Florida 

9 immediately before the enactment of this Act are not part 

10 of such system, and maps relating to such unit are hereby 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2057 IH

1 removed from the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the 

2 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)). 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The State ex rel. Salyer, Appellant, *v.*Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Salyer v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 387.]

(No. 96-1999

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A, Stewart R. Jaffy*and *Marc J. Jaffy,*for appellant.

*388
      *Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the writ is granted.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C. J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Pearson, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Pearson*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 111.]

(No. 97-2488

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*112
      *Wendell R. Jones,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2091 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2091

To amend title 36, United States Code, to require that the POW/MIA flag 
    be displayed on all days that the flag of the United States is 
                 displayed on certain Federal property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2013

Mrs. Bachmann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 36, United States Code, to require that the POW/MIA flag 
    be displayed on all days that the flag of the United States is 
                 displayed on certain Federal property.

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

SECTION 1. DAYS ON WHICH THE POW/MIA FLAG IS DISPLAYED ON CERTAIN 
              FEDERAL PROPERTY.

    Section 902 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking 
subsection (c) and inserting the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Days for Flag Display.--For the purposes of this section, 
POW/MIA flag display days are all days on which the flag of the United 
States is displayed.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3-20-CV-04698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; 

and RAYME EDLER,

Defendants. 

_________________________________/

NOTICE OF SELECTION OF MEDIATOR 

Defendant, ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS (“Escambia”), Defendant, RAYME EDLE (“Edler”) and 

Plaintiff, MATHEW SELOVER (“Selover”) (collectively referred to as the 

“Parties”) by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby notifies the Court that 

they have selected mediator, Larry A. Matthews of Matthews & Higgins, LLC, PA, 

3 114 E. Gregory St. Pensacola, FL 32502. Mediation is scheduled to occur on June 

4, 2021 starting at 9:00 a.m./ cst.

 Respectfully submitted,

LYDECKER | DIAZ

Counsel for Escambia County

495 Grand Blvd.

Suite 206

Miramar Beach, FL

Telephone: (305) 416-3180

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 55 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 2
By: /s/ Stephanie Pidermann

STEPHANIE PIDERMANN, ESQ.

FBN: 60414

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of Court using CM/ECF on May 10, 2021. I also certify that a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing was served this day via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List 

below.

/s/ Stephanie Pidermann

Stephanie Pidermann, Esq. 

JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.

Law Office of Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A.

900 E. Moreno Street 

Pensacola, FL 32503

PIE:jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

S/E:civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Phone: (850) 434-9200

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CECILY L. KAFFER, ESQ.

Pro Hac Vice

The Kullman Firm

Post Office Box 1287

Mobile, Alabama 36633

P: clk@kullmanlaw.com

T: 251) 432-1811

Attorney for Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 55 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 28.412 Strict Middling Light Spotted Color.

Strict Middling Light Spotted Color is color which in spot or color, or both, is between Strict Middling Color and Strict Middling Spotted Color.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Hurston, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Hurston*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 110.]

(No. 97-2677

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Mathias H. Heck, Jr.,*Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Karen L. Sollars,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Raymond Hurston, pro se.*

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.89 [Reserved]
#### The State ex rel. Zamudio, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Zamudio v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 394.]

(No. 97-1861

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Law Office of Thomas Tootle*and *Thomas Tootle,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William J. McDonald,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Roetzel & Andress*and *Douglas M. Kennedy,*for appellee Hancock Hogs, Inc.

*395The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I would affirm the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Annual Report of AEI Real Estate Fund  XV
Limited  Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB  for  the
period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
86-A, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
86-A,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management 86-A, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              March 21, 2005



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management 86-A, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              March 21, 2005
#### In the Matter of Alexander Beaton, Petitioner, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority as, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a bus operator. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that petitioner is entitled to back pay for the period beginning 30 days after his suspension and ending on the date of the hearing officer's report (excluding any delay occasioned by the petitioner), less any moneys received during that period as provided in subdivision 3 of section 75 of the Civil Service Law. As so modified, determination confirmed insofar as reviewed and proceeding otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the determination. Under such circumstances, we are compelled to confirm said findings (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Moreover, in light of petitioner’s prior disciplinary history, we see no basis to disturb the imposed penalty of dismissal (see *Matter of La Rosa v Police Dept, of City of N. Y,*55 AD2d 890; *Matter of Williams v New York City Tr. Auth.,*58 AD2d 585). Notwithstanding his dismissal, petitioner is entitled to back pay for the period he was on suspension in excess of 30 days, excluding any delay occasioned by him, less any moneys received during that period, as provided in subdivision 3 of section 75 of the Civil Service Law (see *Matter of Amkraut v Hults,*21 AD2d 260; *Matter of Coping v New York City Tr. Auth.,*57 AD2d 621). Upon his appeal to the Impartial Disciplinary Review Board, the petitioner voluntarily waived his right to back pay from the date of the hearing officer’s report. We have examined petitioner’s other points and have found them to be without merit. We note that no specific findings of guilt were made with respect to petitioner’s violation of rules 81 and 125. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS PEDREGON

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 0 0 119

- C R

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20170D01684 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

b rief until May 3

, 201 9

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE THE

STATE ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’ s attorney, prepare the

State ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 3

, 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of March

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### § 29.2639 Rule 23.

Tobacco in strip form which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a subgrade by placing the special factor “S” preceding the grademark.

[49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Limiteds Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Limited, each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Limited.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2009



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName:

Roger M. BoissonneaultTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Paul HerendeenName:

Paul HerendeenTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Warner Chilcott Limited and will be retained by
Warner Chilcott Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry B. Ogburn, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered February 28, 1968 on resentence, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 10 years on the grand larceny count, as a first offender, and 11 months and 27 days on the petit larceny count. Judgment modified, on the law, to the extent of eliding the sentence on the grand larceny count and remanding the case to the County Court for resentencing on that count in accordance herewith. No findings of fact with respect to the sentence on the grand larceny count have been affirmed. Under sections 1295 and 2189 of the Penal Law, the sentence imposed on the grand larceny count was illegal in that, under the facts of this case, the minimum of defendant’s sentence for grand larceny, as a first offender, could not properly exceed five years. Defendant must be resentenced in accordance with these provisions of the Penal Law. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin, and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 12969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04613]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Fourth Review)]


Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved 
mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in 
the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on August 3, 2020 (85 FR 
46725) and determined on November 6, 2020 that it would conduct 
expedited reviews (86 FR 7877, February 2, 2021).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on March 1, 2021. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5167 (March 2021), 
entitled Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia: 
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 2, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-04613 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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:
 By:
    /s/ Frederic ScheerFrederic ScheerPresident, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Financial/Accounting Officer
and Chairman