alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Questions on your comments to the proposed changes to UST regulations

Elizabeth McDermott to

:

Mark Morgan

Monday 06/11/2012 09:00am

From: Elizabeth McDermott/DC/USEPA/US

To: "Mark Morgan" <Mmorganptsa@cox.net>

Bcc: Linda Gerber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, ChoYi Kwan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

 Questions for PMAA 060612.docx 

Questions for PMAA letter 6-6-12.docx 

Mark,

As I explained in my earlier email, we are reaching out to a number of commenters 

to gain additional information about their comments. Attached are a number of 

initial questions we have about PMAA's comments. We may have more questions in 

the future but wanted to get started gathering the additional information we need to 

determine our path forward. Please take a look at the questions and let me know 

when you would like to schedule a meeting with your members. Of course if you are 

able to answer these questions before the meeting, it would make it that much more 

productive.

Thanks,

Liz

(See attached file: Questions for PMAA letter 6-6-12.docx) (See 

attached file: Questions for PMAA 060612.docx)
No. 11-9377.

#### Anh Vu Nguyen *v.*Wingler.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1200

1600

1200

1700

1100

1000

1500

700

1000

1200

1000

1200

1400

1000

900

1200

1200

1700

1200

1600

1700

900

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1000

1000

1200

1600

900

1600

1100

1300

1100

1200

1400

1000

900

900

1100

1100

1000

1000

1400

1400

1400

800

800 800

1500

1500

1500

900

900

900

800

800

800

900

900

900

900

1300

1300 1300

1300

1300

900

900

900

900

900

1100

1100

1100

1100

1100

1100

1100

1100

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

IR V IN G R D

R O C K Y B R O O K R D

R O C K Y B R O O K R D

MAINE

MAINE

UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES

CANADA

CANADA

AROOSTOOK CO

R

ock

y

Brook

Rocky Brook

Rocky Brook

Rocky

Brook

Rocky

Brook

Rocky Brook

West

Branch Little Black River

Little Black River

Rideout

Pond

Rocky

Brook

Rocky

Mountain NW

Saint

Eleuthere

Hafey

Pond

Johnson

Brook

Mountain

Estcourt

Morrison

Brook

Rocky

Mountain

FEET

FEET

FEET

FEET

47°

69° 30"

22'30"

47° 47°15'

22' 17'

47°22'

69° 30" 20' 30" 69°

15'

22'

20'

17'

30"

30"

15'

69°15'

30"

20'

17'30"

20'

17'

1 350 000

790 000

770 000

1 310 000

E

52

52

52

35

40

41

39

52

52

46 52

42

52

000mN

52

52

35

36 36

43

44

52

52

52

52

52

41

52

52

37

4

44

43

42

74 75 77

4

38

80

52

4 75

4

4

45

79 4 4

4

73

4 76

72 74 76 4 E

37

52

52

38

34

45 52

40

52

77

72

39

52

52

000m 4

4 4

52

4

79

N 52 000m 34

4

80000m

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

MAINE

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

ROCKY BROOK, ME-QC

2011

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

ROCKY BROOK QUADRANGLE

MAINE-QUEBEC

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Imagery.............................................NAIP, September 2009

Roads................................................©2006-2011 TomTom

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2011

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours.............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

Boundaries..............Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2010

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 19T

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Maine Coordinate System of 1983 (east

zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.0

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

DN

19T

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2011 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 14 ́

4 MILS

17° 39 ́

314 MILS
404 A.2d 1359

#### Commonwealth v. Thomas Warren, Appellant.

Submitted October 25, 1978.

Lester G. Nauhaus, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appellate Division, for appellant; Robert E. Colville, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, SPAETH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     ANNUAL  REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          352
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        1,837
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  29,479
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              0
<LOANS>                                      29,727
<ALLOWANCE>                                     249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               63,661
<DEPOSITS>                                   34,257
<SHORT-TERM>                                 11,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               0
<LONG-TERM>                                   3,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        106
<OTHER-SE>                                   13,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               63,661
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               2,382
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             1,783
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                113
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              4,278
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            1,548
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2,359
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         1,919
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     6
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (3)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1,013
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      324
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    689
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.10
<LOANS-NON>                                      68
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                284
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    71
<RECOVERIES>                                     36
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               249
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            249
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0



</TABLE>
### The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 96-1587

___________ Tregan P. Albers, Stakeholder, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Internal Revenue Service, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Kenneth E. Schroeder; Norma * District of Nebraska. L. Schroeder, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellants, * * Douglas C. Schroeder; Susan * J. Keim; Glen R. Schroeder; * David A. Schroeder, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: December 16, 1996 Filed: January 6, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Kenneth and Norma Schroeder appeal from the district court's order 1 granting the United S tates' motion for disbursement of interpleaded funds and its order denying their motion to remand the case to state court. The Inter nal Revenue Service served Notices of Levy on Tregan P. Albers t o seize r ent money he owed for the 1994 crop year on the Schroeders' far m land, in order to partially

### -2-

satisf yunpaid federal tax assessments. Albers filed this interpleade r actio n in Nebraska state court, and the government removed the case t o federa l district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b). Th e Schroeders argue that the district court did not have jurisdiction over th e action, and thus should have remanded it to state court because they are "Non-resident Aliens," that the IRS assessment a nd collection actions were based on "fraud coercion and fear," and that they should be able to contes t their tax liability in this interpleader action. We conclude the judgment of the district court was correct and that an opinion would lac k precedential value. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

As we conclude that appellants' appeal is based entirely o n contentions that have repeatedly been rejected as frivolous, we grant the government's request that we assess $2,000 in sanctions against appellants
. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; see, e.g., United States v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1300 (1994) ; Lonsdale v. United States , 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990); Becraft v. Nelson , 885 F.2d 547, 548-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
Accord inglywe affirm the district court's judgment and impos e sanctions in the amount of $2,000.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 11-9709.

#### Blackwell *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 02 34 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 2 20 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 10 - 02 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s , list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (no t by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): Wh at change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or h ow is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1521: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7lOBsSt8BC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1521-the-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-itc-opinion-22-1521-opinion-5-16-2023_2127549\/\">22-1521: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1521-the-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-itc-opinion-22-1521-opinion-5-16-2023_2127549\/embed\/#?secret=7lOBsSt8BC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1521: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"7lOBsSt8BC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1521 Origin: ITC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 10-10937.

#### Blanco Marte *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9633.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

# ACTION:

 Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

 In accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law (92-463) announcement is made of the next meeting of the Inland Waterways Users Board. The meeting will be held on July 27, 2000, in Portland, Oregon, Doubletree Hotel—Columbia River, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive (Tel. (503) 283-2111). Registration will begin at 9 a.m. and the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Mr. Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-PF, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 None.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-16401  Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-02-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16752]


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

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 20 
July 2000, at 9 a.m. at the Department of Interior's main auditorium, 
18th & C Streets, NW., Washington, DC, 20240. The principal item for 
review will be the World War II Memorial.
    Following this meeting, the Commission will reconvene at the 
Commission of Fine Arts, National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary 
Square, 441 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728, to discuss the 
remaining items on the agenda, including the design of the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge.
    Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or 
oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, 
Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. 
Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing 
impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the 
meeting date.

    Dated in Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
Charles H. Atherton,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16752 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1016: CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. INGENIO, INC. [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"noACx3L2e0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-22-1016-click-to-call-technologies-lp-v-ingenio-inc-opinion-22-1016-opinion-8-17-2022_1992553\/\">22-1016: CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. INGENIO, INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-22-1016-click-to-call-technologies-lp-v-ingenio-inc-opinion-22-1016-opinion-8-17-2022_1992553\/embed\/#?secret=noACx3L2e0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1016: CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. INGENIO, INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"noACx3L2e0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. INGENIO, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1016 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131048 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131048 COA: 263603 Wayne CC: 87-002107 DWIGHT ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

         In connection with Bancshares of Florida, Inc.’s (“Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 (“Report”),the undersigned certifies 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 Company as of, and for the period ended, September 30,2002. |

|                                          |   |      |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Date:   November 12, 2002 |   | By:  | /s/ THOMAS M. WHELAN |
|                                          |        |           |    **Thomas M. Whelan****Chief Financial Officer**  |