alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
123 STAT. 1774 PUBLIC LAW 111–29—JUNE 19, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1595: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Apr. 28, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–29 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3245 Latta 

Road in Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BRIAN K. SCHRAMM POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Brian K. Schramm Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building’’. 

Approved June 19, 2009. 

June 19, 2009 

[H.R. 1595] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CARL MEALING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, WASHINGTON;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT;

RIDGEFIELD POLICE CHIEF BRUCE

HALL; BRUCE HALL in his individual

capacity; RIDGEFIELD CITY MANAGER

GEORGE FOX, and GEORGE FOX in his

individual capacity,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5778FDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-CLAIM

PLAINTIFF GEORGE FOX

This matter came before the Court on the Motion of Donald A. Greig and Landerholm,

Memovich, Lansverk & Whitesides, P.S. to withdraw as co-counsel for Defendant and Cross-claim

Plaintiff George Fox. Fox would continue to be represented by Patricia K. Buchanan and the law

firm of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc. The proper notifications having been

made, the Court having considered the motion and the supporting declaration of Donald A. Greig,

and there being no opposition, the Court will grant the motion. NOW, THEREFORE, 

IT IS ORDERED: Motion of Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claim Plaintiff George Fox

to Withdraw [Dkt. # 78] is GRANTED. 

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 82 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 1
© Oe YN HW BW NY

YN Y N RN NN KY Se Be Be we ew ew ee eB eK
ot AA BF WN | SO HMA AA RFR Ww AS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, .
CRO’ ~ SYS |

Plaintiff,
INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS
OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS
~ OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED
Kevin UW. Donee_ STATES PROBATION OFFICE
Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging
that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS;;
The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel. RUSSELL LEONARD ;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation
Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are
substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s);
The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable J. K. ARNOLD.

Date: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Time: 2:00 P.M.
( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

(X) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any
other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered
by the court for further proceedings. .

The clerks shail direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,
the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008

4S J, Kelley Arnold.
J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

SL
ono HO YN |

Page - 1
“ee 06-CR-05451-ORD
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with this Form 10-K/A periodic
report ofRecon Technology, Ltd for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Yin Shenping, certify that:



(1) This period report containing the financial statements 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
this period report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofRecon
Technology, Ltd.



Date: February 8, 2012





| | /s/ Yin Shenping                                     
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | Yin Shenping                                         
| | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Before the Third Division,

October 5, 1960

No. 64655.

#### A. V. Olsson Trading Co., Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/18098, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.,*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STEVE CARPENTER and JANELLE

CARPENTER, a marital community, d/b/a BBQ

Shack, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, a Washington

Municipal Corporation; LIZ LOOMIS; and

KAREN GUZAK and JOHN DOE GUZAK, a

marital community,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-0755-JCC

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion To Extend Time (Dkt. No. 28) and

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 27). The Court, having reviewed all materials submitted by the

parties and determined that oral argument is not necessary, hereby finds and rules as follows. 

A. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

 Plaintiffs originally moved for an extension of time to file motions to compel and to pierce

Defendants’ claimed attorney–client and executive sessions privileges. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the

portion of their motion relating to a motion to compel, but they still seek an extension to file a motion

related to the privileges. (See Pls.’ Notices (Dkt. Nos. 49, 56).)

Discovery motions are due before the discovery cutoff. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 16(f). 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-JCC Document 69 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 2

Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of good cause for failure to file the requested discovery

motion prior to the February 26, 2007 discovery cutoff in this case. Accordingly, their motion to extend

time is DENIED.

B. MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiffs originally moved to compel all three Defendants to verify their Answers to Plaintiffs’

Interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2). After the instant motion was filed

and after Interrogatory Answers were due, Defendants provided verifications for the First Set of

Interrogatories by all three Defendants and for the Second Set of Interrogatories by one of the

Defendants. Plaintiffs continue to request that all three Defendants verify the Second Set of

Interrogatories and request sanctions. (See Pls.’ Reply (Dkt. No. 48).) 

All Defendants to whom Interrogatories were directed were required to verify the Answers

thereto. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2). Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement their Answers

with complete verifications immediately if they have not already done so. Despite Defendants’ tardiness,

the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2007.AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00755-JCC Document 69 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 15.1[Conyers Dill & Pearman Letterhead]29 June 2010   Focus Media Holding Limited DIRECT LINE: 2842 9556 / 2842 9550UnitNo. 1, 20th Floor E-MAIL: christopher.bickley@conyersdillandpearman.comTheCentrium / brian.lee@conyersdillandpearman.com60Wyndham Street OUR REF: CB/BLHK/rc/M//873588/D#298646Central,Hong Kong YOUR REF:Attention: Mr. Alex Deyi YangDear Sirs:We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Taxation — Cayman Islands” in theannual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2009 of Focus Media HoldingLimited to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on orabout 29 June 2010.Yours faithfully,/s/ Conyers Dill & Pearman
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      Exhibit 11

                       SUN TELEVISION AND APPLIANCES, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
              For the Quarters Ended May 30, 1998 and May 31, 1997
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            For the Quarter Ended
                                                                            ---------------------
                                                                        May 30,               May 31,
                                                                         1998                  1997
                                                                        -------               -------
<S>                                                                    <C>                   <C>
Net loss                                                                $(10,917)             $(10,154)
                                                                        ========              ========

Common shares outstanding:
   Weighted average                                                       17,439                17,439

   Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants                              --                    --
                                                                        --------              --------

   Weighted average shares used to calculate
     diluted loss per share                                               17,439                17,439
                                                                        ========              ========


Net loss per share:
   Assuming basic                                                       $  (0.63)             $  (0.58)
                                                                        ========              ========

   Assuming diluted                                                     $  (0.63)             $  (0.58)
                                                                        ========              ========
</TABLE>


                                       14
EXHIBIT 32.1


VITAL PRODUCTS, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 Vital Products, Inc. (the Registrant)
on Form 10-K/A for the period  ended July 31, 2012 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,James
McKinney, Principal  Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: September 24 2013


By: /s/ James McKinney

James McKinney

Acting Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer and Director

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)

<PAGE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RON DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15992 

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02637-YGR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, 

Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for 

publication and is not precedent except as 

provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this 

case is suitable for decision without oral 

FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15992 

Before:SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, 

Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Douglas Daniel 

Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) 

alleging that defendant interfered with the 

practice of his religion. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 16-15992 

district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de 

novo. ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 

F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s 

claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief 

because defendant voluntarily changed the 

allegedly infringing policy, rendering his claims 

moot. See Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 

972 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth factors for 

evaluating whether defendant’s voluntary 

cessation of behavior has rendered a case moot); 

Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 
4 16-15992 

1505, 1514 (9th Cir. 1994) (declaratory relief 

not appropriate for moot claims). 

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s 

claims seeking monetary damages as barred by 

the Eleventh Amendment. See Holley v. Cal. 

Dep’t. Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111, 1114 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (state officials acting in their official 

capacity are immune from suit under the 

Eleventh Amendment, and “[t]he Eleventh 

Amendment bars [an inmate’s] suit for officialcapacity damages under RLUIPA”).

We reject as without merit Clark’s 
5 16-15992 

contentions regarding judicial misconduct. 

Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket 

Entry No. 28) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT 

OPENING BRIEF AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 1

 

LAW OFFICE OF SHERRI ALLEN, INC., P.S. 

P. O. BOX 2209 

BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98310 

(360) 373-8844 

U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

FREDERICK RAINER III, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 06-5336RJB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPENING 

BRIEF AND AMEND SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

The administrative record was filed in this case on August 18, 2006. 

Counsel has agreed to amend the Scheduling Order entered on August 23, 

2006; and shall now conform to the following amended briefing schedule: 

 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief to be filed on or before October 2, 2006. 

 Defendant’s Answering Brief to be filed on or before November 1, 2006. 

 Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to be filed on or before November 15, 2006. 

This appeal will be considered upon the written submissions unless the Court 

should order oral argument. 

/// 

Case 3:06-cv-05336-RJB Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT 

OPENING BRIEF AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 2

 

LAW OFFICE OF SHERRI ALLEN, INC., P.S. 

P. O. BOX 2209 

BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98310 

(360) 373-8844 

/// 

The clerk is to direct copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

DATED this 20th day of September, 2006. 

 s/ Sherri Allen ____________ 

 SHERRI ALLEN –WSBA No. 27410 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 s/ Sherri Allen _________________ 

 BRIAN C. KIPNIS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 (signed per oral authorization) 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2006. 

 

 _/s/ J. Kelley Arnold__________________ 

 J. KELLEY ARNOLD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-05336-RJB Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00017-CV

BILLY FITTS AND FREIDA FITTS, Appellants

V.

MELISSA RICHARDS-SMITH, THE LAW FIRM OF GILLAM & SMITH, LLP, E. TODD 

TRACY, AND THE TRACY LAW FIRM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-0150

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Carter,* JJ.

________________________

*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as 

that phrase is defined in Rule 9.9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

9.9(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security 

number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(1). Further, “a bank account number, credit card number, or other financial 

account number” is classified as sensitive data. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(2). The clerk’s record 

includes sensitive data as defined by Rule 9.9. Rule 9.9(b) states, “Unless the inclusion of sensitive 

data is specifically required by statute, court rule, or administrative regulation, an electronic or 

paper document containing sensitive data may not be filed with a court unless the sensitive data is 

redacted . . . .” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(b).

Therefore, because the clerk’s record fails to protect sensitive data, we order the clerk of 

this Court or her appointee, pursuant to the inherent power of this Court, to seal the electronically 

filed clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 1, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71378-71379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Senior Executive Service; Appointment of Members to the 
Performance Review Board

    Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that Notice of the Appointment 
of the individual to serve as a member of the Performance Review Board 
of the Senior Executive Service shall be published in the Federal 
Register.
    The following individuals are hereby appointed to serve on the 
Department's Performance Review Board:

Permanent Membership

Chair--Nikki McKinney, Associate Deputy Secretary
Vice-Chair--Carolyn Angus-Hornbuckle, Assistant Secretary for 
Administration and Management
Alternate Vice-Chair--Sydney Rose, Chief Human Capital Officer

Rotating Membership--Appointments Expire on 09/30/26

BLS Tony Williams, Associate Commissioner for Technology and Survey 
Processing
EBSA Amber Rivers, Director of Health Plan Standards and Compliance 
Assistance
ETA Nicholas Lalpuis, Regional Administrator, Dallas
ILAB Molly McCoy, Associate Deputy Undersecretary
MSHA Brian Goepfert, Administrator for Mine Safety and Health 
Enforcement
OASAM Carl Campbell, Senior Procurement Executive
ODEP Jennifer Sheehy, Deputy Assistant Secretary

[[Page 71379]]

OFCCP Tina Williams, Director, Division of Policy and Program 
Development
OLMS Emily Prosise, Regional Director, St. Louis, MO
OSHA Eric Harbin, Regional Administrator, Dallas
OWCP Christy Long, National Administrator of Field Operations, Seattle
SOL John Rainwater, Regional Solicitor, Dallas
VETS Ivan Denton, Director, National Programs
WHD Ruben Rosalez, Regional Administrator, San Francisco

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tania Burkley, Chief, Division of 
Executive Resources, Room N2453, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances 
Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, 
telephone: (202) 693-7638.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
Carolyn Angus-Hornbuckle,
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management.
[FR Doc. 2023-22745 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-04-P
THE HONORABLE RICARDO MARTINEZ 

ORDER 

 (CASE NO. CR06-0251-RSM)-1 

HWB - ESQ. PLLC PO BOX 13085 

Mill Creek, WA 98082 

TELEPHONE: 206.774.0845

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

HA VAN TRAN, 

Defendant. 

No. CR06-0251-RSM 

ORDER ALLOWING 

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 

DATE 

ORDER

 This matter having come before the Court on, defendant's, Ha Van Tran's, 

and the Government's Stipulated Motion for Continuance of the Trial Date. 

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the records and files herein, 

and the facts indicated by the defendant's counsel, Hugh Berry, in this matter, 

the Court hereby grants the Motion. 

Case 2:06-cr-00251-RSM Document 40 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER 

 (CASE NO. 06-0251-RSM)-2 

HWB - ESQ. PLLC 

PO BOX 13085 

Mill Creek, WA 98082 

TELEPHONE: 206.774.0845

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

1. That the trial date as to both defendants Ha Van Tran and Coung Minn 

Parker shall be continued from November 6, 2006 to December 11, 

2006. 

2. Any period of delay resulting from the continuance of the trial shall be 

excluded for speedy trial purposes pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) 

and (B).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2006. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Hugh W. Berry 

Hugh W. Berry, WSBA # 23509 

HWB - ESQ. PLLC 

P.O. BOX 13085 

Mill Creek, WA 98082 

Phone Number: 206.774.0845 

Email: hugh@hwb-esq.com 

Case 2:06-cr-00251-RSM Document 40 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 2