alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
531 P.2d 775

#### Gerald G. GRADWOHL, Claimant-Appellant, v. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Employer and Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Surety, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 11738.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 21, 1975.

Raymond C. Givens, of Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc., Caldwell, for claimant-appellant.

John W. Barrett of Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for defendant-respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by claimant from a decision of the Industrial Commission which denied claimant compensation for hypertension. Claimant-Appellant Gerald Gradwohl suffered injuries in a 1971 industrial accident. During the course, and as a result of, the treatment for those injuries he suffered serious and various allergic reactions. He also developed and suffers from hypertension which he alleges resulted from the accident and the allergic reactions. He was fully compensated for the original injuries and for the allergic reactions to the treatment. However, the Industrial Commission found as a factual matter that there was no causal connection between the original industrial accident and the hypertension, and thus denied compensation for the hypertension.

Findings of fact by the Industrial Commission may be reviewed and set aside by this Court only if they are not based on substantial competent evidence. I.C. § 72-732; Art. 5, § 9, Idaho Constitution. *See also*I.C. § 72-724; Alder v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 92 Idaho 506, 446 P.2d 628 (1968); Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974). Appellant argues a contrary result in this case since medical testimony before the Commission was in the form of depositions. We reject that contention and the argument that Mata v. Broadmore Homes, 95 Idaho 873, 522 P.2d 586 (1974) is controlling. *Mata*is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. We find there is substantial competent although conflicting evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Commission of the lack of causal connection between the accident and the hypertension condition. The decision of the Industrial Commission is *affirmed.*
NUMBER 13-09-00225-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

NICOLAS GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 197th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Nicolas Garcia, attempts to appeal his conviction for driving while

intoxicated. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant

has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On May 7, 2009, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On June 12, 2009, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response

does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 2nd day of July, 2009.
§ 158.420 Reception facilities: Capacity and exceptions. Each day a port or terminal is in operation, the person in charge of a port or terminal must provide, or ensure the availability of, a reception facility that is capable of receiving all garbage that the master or person who is in charge of a ship desires to discharge, except— ( a ) Large quantities of spoiled or damaged cargoes not usually discharged by a ship; or
( b ) Garbage from ships not having commercial transactions with that port or terminal.
EXHIBIT 99
NEWS RELEASE


CONTACT:
  Richard Becht
  (716) 655-3800

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


         ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION REPORTS SECOND QUARTER RESULTS

     EAST AURORA, N.Y., January 19, 1999 -- Acme Electric Corporation
(NYSE: ACE) announced today that for the second quarter of its 1999 fiscal
year ended January 2, 1999, net sales were $18,803,000, compared to
$22,752,000 for the comparable period of the previous
year, with net income of $402,000, or $.08 per share, compared to net
income of $498,000, or $.10 per share, the previous year.  Net sales for
the twenty-six-week period ended January 2, 1999, were $41,181,000,
compared with $44,931,000 for the comparable period of the previous year.
Net income for the twenty-six-week period ended January 2, 1999, was
$924,000, or $.18 per share, compared with a net income of $668,000, or
$.13 per share, for the comparable period of the previous year.
     Robert J. McKenna, Chairman and CEO, stated that, "The decline in
sales is primarily attributable to the loss of a major customer in our
electronics business, occurring sooner than expected, and softness in
certain segments of the capital goods market that has impacted our
electrical power distribution products sales volume.  On a more optimistic
note, our quoting activity and new product design programs are very active.
Several new programs with both existing and new customers are presently in
the design stage and should yield solid sales and earnings with the next
year."
     Founded in 1917, Acme Electric Corporation is a leader in the design
and manufacture of power conversion equipment for electronic and electrical
systems for industrial, commercial, residential, and military and aerospace
applications.  Corporate headquarters are in East Aurora, N.Y., with
operations in Cuba, N.Y., Lumberton, N.C., and Tempe, Ariz.

                                  # # # #

<PAGE>

ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Comparative Analysis
(in thousands, except per share data)


                                 13 Weeks Ended       26 Weeks Ended
                                 --------------       --------------
                              01/02/99  12/27/97  01/02/99  12/27/97
                              --------  --------  --------  --------

Net Sales                      $18,803   $22,752   $41,181   $44,931

Net Income                        $402      $498      $924      $668

Net Income Per Common Share
  (Basic and Diluted)             $.08      $.10      $.18      $.13

Weighted Average Number of Shares
  Outstanding Used to Compute
  Income Per Common Share:
    Basic                        5,057     5,044     5,056     5,043
    Diluted                      5,088     5,059     5,078     5,058


Company news is available by FAX: dial 1-800-758-5804, and input
extension 006675; or visit our web site at acmeelec.com
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671-ALTONAGA/TORRES

DELIO BATISTA, 

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ and

RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., 

REINIER CORTES, AND 

ANDREA GONZALEZ 

QUINTERO,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING REVISED VERDICT FORM

Plaintiffs, Delio Batista, Carlos Lopez, Mariana Lopez, and Rafaela Valiente, notify the 

Court and all parties of the filing of the revised Verdict Form, as revised based on the rulings at 

the Calendar Call held on June 27, 2023. 

Dated this 3rd day of July 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2023 Page 1 of 1
PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionRachelCarsonStateOfficeBuildingP.O.Box2063Harrisburg,PA17105-2063April14,2009Secretary717-787-2814Mr.WilliamC.EarlyActingRegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Regionifi1650ArchStreet(MailCode:3RAOO)Philadelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029DearMr.Early:EnclosedforreviewandapprovalbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyisarevisiontoPennsylvania’sStateImplementationPlan(SIP)concerningamendmentstotheplanapprovalprovisionscodifiedin25Pa.CodeChapter127,SubchapterB(relatingtoplanapprovalrequirements).TheseamendmentsarepartoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection’s(DEP)effortstostreamlineandexpeditetheissuanceofplanapprovals(preconstructionpermits)inthisCommonwealth.Thefinal-formregulationextendsthedurationof“limited”extensionsfortemporaryoperationofthesourcetopermitcompliancetestingand“shake-down”operationofnewormodifiedsourcesandaircleaningdevicesfrom120daysto180days.Inaddition,thefinalrulemakingaddsprovisionsthatoutlinestepsthatwillbetakenifanapplicantsubmitsanincompleteapplicationtoDEP.Theamendmentsalsoprovideforthepublicationofajoint“NoticeofReceiptandIntenttoIssue”inthePennsylvaniaBulletinforcertainminorsourceplanapprovalsandincludeamendmentstoexistingnoticerequirementsandconferenceandhearingprovisionsinSubchapterB.ThisSIPsubmittalincludesthreecopiesofthefinalrulemakingpublishedinthePennsylvaniaBulletinonMay4,2008(38Pa.B.2365),documentationofthepublicparticipationprocess,includingproofofpublicnotice,andDEP’scommentandresponsedocument.ShouldyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisSIPrevision,pleasecontactJoyceE.Epps,Director,BureauofAirQuality,bye-mailatjeeppsstate.pa.usorbytelephoneat717-787-9702or. 

# RECEIVEDerely,APR222009



# JV -\JFActingSecretary 

# [Jivisio

[brector

(IPl)EnclosuresPrintedonRecycledPaperAnEqualOpportunityEmployerwww.dep.state.pa.us
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


The undersigned officer of Acme United Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certifies to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed a part of the Report or
"filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


By          /s/ PAUL G. DRISCOLL
         ------------------------------
                Paul G. Driscoll
               Vice President and
             Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  November 14, 2005




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 Acme United Corporation and will
be retained by Acme United Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
for consideration on appeal, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Nguyen & Lay 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52327-52328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21324]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10004, Hume Bank; Hume, MO

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (``FDIC'') as Receiver for Hume Bank, (``the Receiver'') 
intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC 
was appointed receiver of Hume Bank on March 7, 2008. The liquidation 
of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted 
by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be 
making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 8.1, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this timeframe.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.


[[Page 52328]]


    Dated: August 17, 2011.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21324 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Part III – Protests","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zLxlwTFTMW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/part3\/\">Part III – Protests<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/part3\/embed\/#?secret=zLxlwTFTMW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Part III – Protests” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"zLxlwTFTMW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
§ 127.1601 Smoking. Each operator of a waterfront facility handling LHG must ensure that no person smokes in the marine transfer area for LHG unless— ( a ) Neither flammable LHG nor its vapors are present in the area; and
( b ) The person is in a place designated and marked in accordance with local law.
[CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995, as amended by USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5692, Feb. 2, 2022]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 09-0241

Focus Ready Draft 3/16/2009

ENGINEER: Austin \ AG

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: Nagase America Corporation

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: chemical goggles / impervious gloves; body-covering

clothing should be needed / sufficient ventilation to minimize

vapor if generated

Respirator: use charcoal gas mask in case of exposure to vapor

Health Effects: Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin, if

swallowed. Irritating to eyes. Irritating to skin. Avoid

contact with eyes.

TLV/PEL:

None Established

CRSS :

Chemical Name: 

S-H20: 1000 g/L @

VP: 3.6E-3 torr @

MW: 174.00 %<500 %<1000

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Neat: Liquid Mfg: NK: Imported Proc/Form: NA End Use: Destroyed.

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (1 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (03/10/2009):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P1B1T3

Health: 2-3 

Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 270 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (2 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

 

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (3 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 09-0241

Use: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same

medium.

Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 2.7E+1 kg/site-day over 165 days/yr from 

to: Uncertain

from: 

Air

Typical: 1.5E-5 kg/site-day over 165 days/yr from 

Worst Case: 3.1E-5 kg/site-day over 165 days/yr from 

to: Uncertain

from: 

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (4 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

 

Air

Output 2: 5.2E-7 kg/site-day over 165 days/yr from 1 site

to: Uncertain

from: 

RELEASE TOTAL

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (5 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt

 

 

 

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090241.eng.txt (6 of 6) [3/15/2010 2:10:10 PM]
1 

4873-4774-7423 v5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-22930-RNS 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 11] 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.8, Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc. brings 

to the Court’s attention the following supplemental authority: 

 Matthews v. Polar Corp., No. 22-CV-649, 2023 WL 2599871 

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (“Exhibit A”). 

 Rudy v. D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., No. 21-CV-03938, 2023 WL 

2711612 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2023) (“Exhibit B”). 

In both cases, plaintiffs—represented by the same New York-based 

counsel representing Plaintiff here—brought class actions alleging deceptive 

practices where products with de-minimis amounts of lemon came in packaging 

with the word “lemon” and lemon images. The plaintiffs alleged similar claims 

for violations of state consumer-protection statutes, breach of warranties, 

negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Both cases were 

dismissed because, the courts determined, a reasonable consumer would 

Case 1:22-cv-22930-RNS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
2 

4873-4774-7423 v5

understand lemon images, yellow package coloring, and “Lemon” in context as 

indications of flavor and not a guarantee of more than a de-minimis amount of 

lemons. See Exh. A at *14-17, 22; Exh. B. at *10-12, 20. 

These decisions are relevant to all arguments raised in Publix’s Motion To 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 11], as 

Plaintiff makes nearly-identical claims about this “honey-lemon” product and 

Florida law uses the same reasonable person standard. 

Dated: April 24, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Daniel B. Rogers

Daniel B. Rogers 

Danielle A. Greenberg 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200

Miami, Florida 33131 

(305) 358-5171 

drogers@shb.com 

dgreenberg@shb.com 

Brian T. Guthrie 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2900 

Tampa, Florida 33602 

(813) 202-7100 

bguthrie@shb.com 

Counsel for Defendant Publix Super 

Markets, Inc. 

Case 1:22-cv-22930-RNS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31(b)**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERI, Mark J. Thomas, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Servidyne, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by other within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to material affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         Date: September 14, 2007    /s/ Mark J. Thomas         Mark J. Thomas        Chief Financial Officer