alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 12 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-3 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-4 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-5 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-6 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-7 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-8 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-9 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-10 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-11 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-12 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-13 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-14 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-15 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-16 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-17 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-18 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-19 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-20 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-21 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-22 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-23 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-24 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00690-MEF-SRW Document 2-25 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
606.570 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.206–70, Advocate for

Competition/Ombudsman, in all solicitations exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 606.5—Advocates for Competition
EXHIBIT 31.2

Section 302 Certification

I, Michael J. Senken, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MiMedx Group, Inc.;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 27, 2012



/s/: Michael J. SenkenMichael J. Senken
###### Editorial Note on Part 869

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 869.301 Notification requirements.

Warehouse operators must file with AMS the name and genuine signature of each person authorized to sign warehouse receipts for the licensed warehouse operator, and will promptly notify AMS of any changes with respect to persons authorized to sign.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 8 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1446** 

CURVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Plaintiff , and
CURVES OF WALKERTON; JOHN DOES 1

- 10, individuals whose identities are as of yet unknown; TEAM WRIGHT LOSS GURU, LLC; ABC CORPORATIONS 1

- 10 , Defendants , and

TONI MCELVEEN , Defendant

- Appellant ,

v.
VONDA HARDY; BARRY HARDY; BARVON ENTERPRISES, LLC , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00456

- WO

- JEP )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Toni McElveen , Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Hartsoe , HARTSOE & ASSOCIATES, PC , Winston

- Salem , North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

T oni McElveen seeks to appeal from the entry of a
default judgment against her under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) following her failure to plead or otherwise defend against the
thi rd

- party civil action and cross

- claims commenced against her by Vonda Hardy, Barry Hardy, and BarVon Enterprises, LLC.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris diction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement .” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 , 214 (2007).
The district court’s j udgment was entered on the
docket on March 31, 2014 . The notice of appeal was filed on
May 2, 2014 . Because McElveen f ailed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts4 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00319

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N .D.S. AND I.F.S. , Children

From the County Court at Law , Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. CC

- 16

- 367 Honorable Romero Molina , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION An appellate court is authorized to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to file her brief by the deadline and gives no reasonable explanation for such failure.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38(a)(1). On October 11, 2018 , this court order ed appellant to file her appellant’s
brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) her failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Appellant has failed to compl y with or respond to this order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38(a)(1); 42.3(c).
PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.46 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. The Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response— ( a ) Develops overall agency policy and provides management direction for evaluation and assessment of technical issues involving security at nuclear facilities, and is the agency safeguards and security interface with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Energy (DOE), other agencies; and the international activities related to the security of radioactive material and nuclear facilities;
( b ) Develops, in participation with domestic and international agencies, foreign policy guidance and provides international assistance in nuclear security and safeguards;
( c ) Develops emergency preparedness policies, regulations, programs, and guidelines for nuclear facilities;
( d ) Provides technical expertise regarding emergency preparedness issues and interpretations; and
( e ) Develops and directs the NRC program for response to incidents, and is the agency emergency preparedness and incident response interface with the DHS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal agencies.
[70 FR 69422, Nov. 16, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 28450, May 21, 2007]
1515.000 Scope of part.       This part implements and supplements FAR part 15. It prescribes the Environmental Protection Agency policies and procedures for contracting for supplies and services by negotiation.    **Parent topic:** PART 1515 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
#### CHARLES, Respondent, v. LEONARD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Adelaide W. Charles, as sole executrix, etc., against George B. Leonard.

No opinion. Motion denied, with leave to renew after the action has been revived against the personal representatives of the deceased defendant. See, also, 155 App. Div. 919, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1113.
exv10w13






Exhibit 10.13




2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Salary
	Edward A. Keible, Jr.
	 	$	386,000	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	John J. Mikulsky
	 	$	282,000	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Brett W. Wallace
	 	$	251,000	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	David M. Hall
	 	$	236,000	 
	Senior Vice President and General Manager, Defense & Security Products
	 	 	 	 
	Steven F. Layton
	 	$	215,000	 
	Senior Vice President and General Manager, Telecom Products
	 	 	 	 
	Daniel P. Teuthorn
	 	$	229,000	 
	Senior Vice President and General Manager, Technology
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DELOISE PRICE, | 

 | 

 PLAINTIFF | 

 | 

VS. | CASE NO. 2:06-CV-721 

 | 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., | 

et al., | 

 | 

 DEFENDANTS | 

DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST

 Come now the Defendants and submit the following list of witnesses who 

may be used at trial: 

1. Dr. Tai Chung, 6936 Winton Blount Blvd, Montgomery, Alabama. 

2. Wayne Lee, 717 East Artesia Blvd, Carson, California. 

3. Joseph T. Carpenter, 303 Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael Road, 

Montgomery, Alabama. 

4. Limark Tucker, Wal-Mart, Montgomery, Alabama. 

5. Any witness necessary for rebuttal and/or impeachment. 

6. Any witness listed by any other party. 

 /s/ Bethany L. Bolger

 Dennis R. Bailey 

 Bethany L. Bolger 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 48 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

Of counsel: 

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON & GARRETT, P.A. 

184 Commerce Street 

Post Office Box 270 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270 

(334) 206-3234 (phone) 

(334) 481-0031 (fax) 

drb@rsjg.com (e-mail) 

blb@rsjg.com (e-mail) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this the 22nd day of January 2008, I filed the 

foregoing document using the CM/ECF system, which will forward a copy of same 

to the following counsel of record: 

 Jock M. Smith 

 Valerie Rucker Russell 

 Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith, Lane & Taylor 

 Post Office Box 830419 

 Tuskegee, Alabama 36083 

 /s/ Bethany L. Bolger

 Of counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 48 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD ALSTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-CV-0722-WKW-TFM

)

CHRISTOPHER ASKEW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena (Doc.

30, filed September 21, 2007). The Court directed Plaintiff should file any response on or

before September 25, 2007. See Doc. 31. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, for good

cause, it is 

ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena (Doc. 30) is GRANTED

and the Subpoena (attached as Exhibit A in Doc. 30) is hereby QUASHED. 

DONE this 26th day of September, 2007.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 32 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7985

DOMINICK THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARK L. HARMON, Officer; ASTRID S. ROBINSON,

Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-04-1145-1-LMB)

Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominick Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Alice Rowan, COUNTY

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Although the last name of the defendant/appellee is

apparently Harman rather than Harmon, we have retained the spelling

employed by the district court.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dominick Thomas appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v.

Harmon, No. CA-04-1145-1-LMB (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2005).* We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 987.28 Expenses.

The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation but shall be allowed their necessary expenses.
#### Jo-Anne C. Schlakman, Respondent, v Geoffrey C. Schlakman, Appellant.

Submitted October 29, 2007;

decided November 20, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d 640.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1086 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Teen Dating Violence Awareness 

and Prevention Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2006 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD (for herself and Mrs. BONO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Teen Dating 

Violence Awareness and Prevention Week’’. 

Whereas 1 in 3 female teens in a dating relationship have 

feared for their physical safety; 

Whereas 1 in 2 teens in serious relationships have compromised their beliefs to please their partner; 

Whereas nearly 1 in 5 teens who have been in a serious relationship said their boyfriend or girlfriend would threaten 

to hurt themselves or their partner if there was a breakup; 

Whereas 1 in 5 teens in a serious relationship report they 

have been hit, slapped, or pushed by a partner; 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1086 IH 

Whereas more than 1 in 4 teens have been in a relationship 

where their partner verbally abuses them; 

Whereas 13 percent of Hispanic teens reported that hitting 

a partner was permissible; 

Whereas 29 percent of girls who have been in a relationship 

said they have been pressured to have sex or engage in 

sex they did not want; 

Whereas nearly 50 percent of girls worry that their partner 

would break up with them if they did not agree to engage 

in sex; 

Whereas Native American women experience higher rates of 

interpersonal violence than any other population group; 

Whereas violent relationships in adolescence can have serious 

ramifications for victims who are at higher risk for substance abuse, eating disorders, risky sexual behavior, suicide, and adult revictimization; 

Whereas the severity of violence among intimate partners has 

been shown to increase if the pattern has been established in adolescence; 

Whereas 81 percent of parents surveyed either believe dating 

violence is not an issue or admit they do not know if it 

is an issue; 

Whereas the week of February 5, 2007, has been recognized 

by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 

Break the Cycle, the American Bar Association, and 

other organizations as an appropriate week for activities 

furthering awareness of teen dating violence; and 

Whereas recognizing a ‘‘National Teen Dating Violence 

Awareness and Prevention Week’’ would benefit schools, 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1086 IH 

communities, and families regardless of socioeconomic 

status, race, or gender: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives should 

2 raise awareness of teen dating violence in the Nation by 

3 supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Teen Dating 

4 Violence Awareness and Prevention Week’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
§ 1008.6 Procedures for Privacy Act requests. ( a ) Any individual may— ( 1 ) Ask the DOE whether a system of records maintained by the DOE contains records about him or her;
( 2 ) Request access to information pertaining to him or her that is maintained in a DOE system of records;
( 3 ) Request that information about him or her in a DOE system of records be amended or corrected. Requests for correction or amendment may include inquiries concerning: ( i ) Whether such information is relevant or necessary to accomplish a purpose that DOE is required to accomplish by statute or Executive Order; or
( ii ) If the information is to be used by the DOE in making a determination about the individual, whether the information is as accurate, relevant, timely, or complete as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness in the determination.
( b ) Requests submitted pursuant to this section shall: ( 1 ) Be in writing and signed by the individual making the request;
( 2 ) State that the request is a “Privacy Act Access” or “Privacy Act Amendment” request;
( 3 ) Include the identification information required by § 1008.4;
( 4 ) Specify, if possible, the title and identifying number of the system of records as listed in DOE's published notices of system of records;
( 5 ) Provide if possible any additional information to aid DOE in responding to the request, for example, a description of the records sought;
( 6 ) Indicate, as appropriate, the time, place, and form of access sought.
( c ) Any request not addressed and marked as specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall be forwarded immediately to the appropriate Privacy Act Officer. An improperly addressed request will not be deemed to have been received for purposes of measuring time periods pursuant to §§ 1008.7 and 1008.10 until actual receipt by the appropriate Privacy Act Officer. The individual making the request shall be notified that the request was improperly addressed and the date when the request was received by the Privacy Act Officer.
( d ) Assistance in preparing an access request pursuant to this section may be obtained from any DOE Privacy Act Officer at the locations listed at § 1008.2(e).
( e ) An individual shall not be required to state a reason or otherwise justify his request for information or access to a record pertaining to him/her that is contained in a system of records.
# SUBCHAPTER F—SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING   

- PART 634—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION 
- PART 636—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 
- PART 637—SERVICE CONTRACTING 
- PART 639—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
- PART 641—ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES 

- PART 634—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION    - 634.003   Responsibilities.
  - 634.005   General requirements.
  - 634.005-6   Full production.
- PART 636—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS    - Subpart 636.1—General     - 636.101   Applicability.
    - 636.101-70   Exception.
    - 636.104   Policy.
    - 636.104-70   Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended.
    - 636.104-71   Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act.
  - Subpart 636.2—Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction     - 636.209   Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.
  - Subpart 636.5—Contract Clauses     - 636.513   Accident prevention.
    - 636.570   Additional DOSAR provisions.
  - Subpart 636.6—Architect-Engineer Services     - 636.602   Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
    - 636.602-1   Selection criteria.
    - 636.602-4   Selection authority.
    - 636.602-5   Short selection processes for contracts not to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
    - 636.606   Negotiations.
- PART 637—SERVICE CONTRACTING    - Subpart 637.1—Service Contracts—General     - 637.102   Policy.
    - 637.102-70   Special requirements for the acquisition of local guard services overseas.
    - 637.102-71   Safety considerations.
    - 637.103   Contracting officer responsibility.
    - 637.104   Personal services contracts.
    - 637.104-70   DOS authorities for personal services contracts.
    - 637.104-71   Personal services agreements.
    - 637.110   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
  - Subpart 637.2—Advisory and Assistance Services     - 637.204   Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.
  - Subpart 637.6—Performance-Based Contracting     - 637.601   General.
- PART 639—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY    - Subpart 639.1—General     - 639.107   Contract clause.
    - 639.107-70   DOSAR solicitation provision and contract clause.
- PART 641—ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES    - Subpart 641.2—Acquiring Utility Services     - 641.201   Policy.
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
of Algodon Wines & Luxury Development Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Scott L. Mathis, as Chief
Executive Officer and principal executive officer and Maria I. Echevarria, as Chief Financial Officer and principal financial officer
of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/
Scott L. Mathis

Scott
L. Mathis

Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer





Dated: March 31, 2016





/s/ Maria
I. Echevarria



Maria
I. Echevarria

Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer



Dated: March 31, 2016





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.