alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Comments on: 2018-1597: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 34A/31 t

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 34A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 6131ta' Jannar 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 34A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 6131ta' Jannar 2018

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rettifika |
| 2018/C 34 A/01 | Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjonijiet miftuħa — EPSO/AD/354/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Latvjana (LV) — EPSO/AD/355/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Maltija (MT) ( ĠU C 418 A, 7.12.2017 ) | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

Rettifika

2018/C 34 A/01

Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjonijiet miftuħa — EPSO/AD/354/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Latvjana (LV) — EPSO/AD/355/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Maltija (MT) ( ĠU C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

( ĠU C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

1

---

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

Rettifika

| 31.1.2018 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2018

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 34/1

---

Rettifika għall-avviż ta’ kompetizzjonijiet miftuħa

EPSO/AD/354/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Latvjana (LV)

EPSO/AD/355/17 — Ġuristi lingwisti (AD 7) għal-lingwa Maltija (MT)

(
  Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 418 A tat-7 ta’ Diċembru 2017
  )

(2018/C 034 A/01)

F’paġna 1,

minflok:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni: Is-16 ta’ Jannar 2018 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), CET”,

aqra:

aqra:

“Id-data tal-għeluq għar-reġistrazzjoni: It-30 ta’ Jannar 2018 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), CET”;

F’paġna 5,

F’paġna 5,

minflok:

minflok:

“META U FEJN NISTA’ NAPPLIKA?

Applika onlajn fis-sit tal-EPSO https://epso.europa.eu/apply/job-offers_mt sa:

is-16 ta’ Jannar 2018 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), CET.”,

aqra:

aqra:

“META U FEJN NISTA’ NAPPLIKA?

Applika onlajn fis-sit tal-EPSO https://epso.europa.eu/apply/job-offers_mt sa:

it-30 ta’ Jannar 2018 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), CET.”.

---
§ 50-203.9 Briefs. ( a ) Any interested person or organization shall be entitled to file with the administrative law judge, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., briefs, proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, or other written statements, within the time allowed by the administrative law judge.
( b ) Any brief or written statement shall be stated in concise terms.
( c ) Three copies of all such documents shall be filed.
( d ) Briefs or written statements of more than twenty pages shall be properly indexed.
[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
#### § 302-3.510 When must we pay return travel for immediate family members?

You must pay transportation expenses for one-way return travel of immediate family members when the employee has successfully completed the employee's service agreement period OCONUS.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
No. 11-52.

#### Archila *v.*KFC U. S. Properties, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 301-70.505 May any travel costs be reimbursed if the employee travels to an alternate location for medical treatment? Yes. When an employee interrupts a TDY assignment because of an incapacitating illness or injury and takes leave of absence for travel to an alternate location to obtain medical services and returns to the TDY assignment, you may reimburse certain excess travel costs provided in this section. Specifically, you may reimburse the excess (if any) of actual costs of travel from the point of interruption to the alternate location and return to the TDY assignment, over the constructive costs of round-trip travel between the official station and the alternate location. The nearest hospital or medical facility capable of treating the employee's illness or injury will not, however, be considered an alternate location. Note to § 301-70.505 :
An alternate location is a destination other than the employee's official station or the point of interruption.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
#### § 301-10.452 May I be reimbursed for personal accident insurance?

No. That is a personal expense and is not reimbursable.
304P15

#### Salvatore Marsico and David Hand v. New Hanover County Board of Education

Petitioners’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1370)

Denied
#### § 105-53.100 Purpose.

This part is published in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 and is a general description of the General Services Administration.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Childtime Learning Centers,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 28, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Periodic Report"), I, William D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: June 26, 2003                    /s/ William D. Davis
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William D. Davis
                                        Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16194]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Bureau of Export Administration Information Systems Technical 
Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will 
meet on July 13 & 14, 2000, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The ISTAC advises the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical 
questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to 
information systems equipment and technology.

July 13

Public Session

    1. Discussion on activities related to development of an 
alternative to Composite Theoretical Performance (CTP)
    2. Presentation on Inter-processors communications: the Infiniband 
and the Intel 870 chipset
    3. Industry proposal for Commerce Control List item 5E001
    4. Additional comments or presentations from the public

July 13 & 14

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 
12958, dealing with U.S. export control programs and strategic criteria 
related thereto.
    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. 
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of 
the public may present oral statements to the ISTAC. The public may 
submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to 
Committee members, the ISTAC suggests that public presentation 
materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to the address 
listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OSIES/EA/BXA MS: 3876, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on September 
10, 1999, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended, that the series of meetings or portions of meetings of 
this Committee and of any Subcommittees thereof dealing with the 
classified materials listed in 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(1) shall be exempt from 
the provisions relating to public meetings found in section 10(a)(1) 
and (a)(3), of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The remaining series 
of meetings or portions thereof will be open to the public.
    A copy of the Notice of Determination to close meetings or portions 
of meetings of this Committee is available for public inspection and 
copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room 
6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. For more 
information or copies of the minutes call Lee Ann Carpenter, 202-482-
2583.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16194 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
# Comments on: 22-1696: HIP, INC. v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION [ORDER], Nonprecedential
#### Charles POTTER, Jr., and Velda C. Jones-Potter, homeowners and residents of the State of Delaware, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. SC&A CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 56, 2016

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: August 24, 2016

Decided: September 7, 2016

Court Below—Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, No. 10528

AFFIRMED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J U A N M A N U EL CO LI N D RESC O M E L L I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73571 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 295- 405 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jua n M a nue l C ol i ndr e s - C om e l l i , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng defe rr alof re m ov alun der the C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 

# FI LED SEP 23 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73571 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , L em us-G alvan v. Mukasey , 518 F . 3d 1081, 1084 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd w e de nyi n pa rta nd di s m i s s i n pa rtthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of de f e rr a l of r e m ova l on the gr ound tha tC ol i ndr e s - C om e l l i di d note s t abl i s h i ti s m or e l i ke l ytha n nothe w oul d be t ortur e d i f

r e turne d t o G ua t e m a l abyora tthe i ns t i ga t i on of , orw i th the consentor ac qu i es ce nce of a publ i c off i ci alor other pers on ac t i ng i n o ff i ci al c ap a c ity . See 8 C .F .R . § § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) , 1 2 0 8 .1 7 ( a ) ; se e al so A rteaga v. Mukasey , 51 1 F . 3d 94 0, 94 8-49 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). W e de c l i ne t o c ons i de rC ol i ndr e s - C om e l l i ’ s c ont e nt i ons c onc e rni ng the B IA ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der because the courtprevi ou sl y r ej ec t ed the m i n C ol i ndres- C om ell iv. H older , N o . 0 9 - 7 2 9 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . J a n . 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) . See Merri t t v. M acke y , 9 3 2 F . 2 d1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) (u n d er th e “ l aw o f th e case do ctri ne, ” one panel of an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der quest i on s w hi ch another panel has dec i ded o n a pri or appeal i n the sam e c as e) . F i nal l y, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew C ol i nd re s- C om el l i ’ s c on t ent i on that he qu al i fi es for hum ani t ar i an as yl um because he f ai l ed t o exh austthi s c l ai m before th e a g e n c y . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
Exhibit 13

Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of National Grid Transco plc (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to his knowledge:

|June 15, 2005 |  | /s/ROGER URWINRoger Urwin
Group Chief Executive     
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|June 15, 2005 |  | /s/STEPHEN LUCASStephen Lucas
Group Finance Director

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 2, 2015

s0630

Order 

Clerk

July 2, 2015

151741

SC: 151741

In re VANGORDER, Minors. COA: 324716

Ingham CC Family Division:

14-001220-NA; 14-001221-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62251-RAR

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORD SHEBA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.,

a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a Dunkin 

Donuts/Baskin Robbins,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice [ECF No. 14] (“Stipulation”), filed on January 25, 2023. The Court having 

reviewed the Stipulation, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, with each 

party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, except as otherwise provided in the parties’ 

Settlement Agreement. The Clerk is instructed to mark this case CLOSED, and any pending 

motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of January, 2023.

 

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 0:22-cv-62251-RAR Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 105-57.011 Ending garnishment. ( a ) Once GSA has fully recovered the amounts owed by the debtor, including interest, penalties, and administrative costs consistent with the FCCS, the Agency will send the debtor's employer notification to discontinue wage withholding.
( b ) At least annually, GSA will review its debtors' accounts to ensure that garnishment has been terminated for accounts that have been paid in full.
§ 105-70.022 Exchange of witness lists, statements, and exhibits. ( a ) At least 15 days before the hearing or at such other time as may be ordered by the ALJ, the parties shall exchange witness lists, copies of prior statements of proposed witnesses, and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony in accordance with § 105-70.033(b). At the time the above documents are exchanged, any party that intends to rely on the transcript of deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony at the hearing, if permitted by the ALJ, shall provide each party with a copy of the specific pages of the transcript it intends to introduce into evidence.
( b ) If a party objects, the ALJ shall not admit into evidence the testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list or any exhibit not provided to the opposing party as provided above unless the ALJ finds good cause for the failure or that there is no prejudice to the objecting party.
( c ) Unless another party objects within the time set by the ALJ, documents exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
**Exhibit 14.4**

**Consent of independent accountants**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of National Grid Transco plc (File numbers 333-33094, 333-65968, 333-97249, 333-103768 and 333-107727) of our report dated May 17, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Compañía Inversora en Transmisión Eléctrica Citelec S.A., which is incorporated in National Grid Transco plc Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Price Waterhouse & Co.

by /s/ Miguel A. Urus (Partner)

     Miguel A. Urus

Buenos Aires, ArgentinaJune 16, 2004

----
#### Joseph Lee MURPHY v. STATE

CR-14-0139

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

01/30/2015

Affirmed
clear that a judge can sentence a defendant within the range prescribed in

NRS 200.400(4)(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons J. Douglas
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Pershing County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney Humboldt County Clerk

2 EIRAIS111111
#### § 302-12.110 [Reserved]
503 P.2d 825

#### Grady Garth POWELL and Pearl C. Powell, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a foreign corporation, and The Continental Insurance Companies, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1283.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 13, 1972.

*471Barber, Haralson, Giles & Moore, by Dale Haralson, Tucson, for appellants.

Lesher & Scruggs, by D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, for appellees.

HATHAWAY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee insurance company and against appellants. There is but one question dispositive of this appeal: Is an insurance company precluded from denying liability for a judgment rendered against a former insured -when the policy of insurance has been terminated prior to the accident because of a nonpayment of premium, but the insurance company does not return the SR-1A form to the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Highway Department. This issue has recently been decided in the cases of Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Newton, 18 Ariz.App. 115, 500 P.2d 900 (1972); Nicholas v. Carolina Casualty Co., 17 Ariz.App. 252, 497 P.2d 72 (1972)1, wherein the court held that the failure to file an SR-1A fonn does not preclude an insurer from • denying liability.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee and against appellant is affirmed.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HOWARD, J., . concur.

1

. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on July 13, 1972.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00029
- CR

Lamont Alva Scrutchens , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16
- 3308
- K277 , THE HONORABLE STACEY MATHEWS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Lamont Alva S crutchens was charged with the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03

. Appellant pleaded guilty and judiciall y c onfessed to the offense , and the trial court placed hi m on de ferred adjudication community supervision for ten
years. T he State twi ce moved to revoke a ppellant ’ s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt based on alleged violations of the t erms of his community su pervision. After the first motion t o adju dicate, the trial court amended the conditions of his community supervision . After the second motion to adju dicate, appellant pleaded “ true ” to some of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision , and the trial court adjudicated h im guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at twenty years’ confinement in the Institutio nal Di vision of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding t hat the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the2

requirements of Anders v. Ca liforn ia by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) ; Garner v. St ate , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 86

- 87 (1988)

.

Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that s he has provided copies of the motion and brief to a p pellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se respo nse; a nd provided appella nt with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; Garner , 300 S.W.3d

at 766

. Although ap pellant requ ested and received the appellate record and additional time to file a pro se response, that time has run and no pro se brief has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no reversib le err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; Garner , 300 S.W.3d at
766 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for rev iew an d the appeal is fri volous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court ’ s judgment adjudicating guilt is affirmed.

_______________________ ___________________ Chari L. Kelly , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justic e s Kelly and S mith
Affir med Filed: August 26, 2022 Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-

14(b) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John J. Millerick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: June 7, 2007 |  |                              
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ John J. Millerick        
|                   |  | John J. Millerick            
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                   |  | (Principal Financial Officer)