alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 83 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 83

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-62 is 
further amended by striking ``November 18, 1999'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting

``December 2, 1999'', and by striking ``$346,483,754'' in section 119 
and inserting ``$755,719,054''. Public Law 106-46 is amended by 
striking ``November 18, 1999'' and inserting ``December 2, 1999''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
exv10w3



 


Exhibit 10.3



Exhibit B-1


FORM OF REVOLVING NOTE


September 22, 2003



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to
______or its registered assigns (the “Lender”), in accordance
with the provisions of the Credit Agreement (as hereinafter defined), the
principal amount of each Revolving Loan from time to time made by the Lender to
the Borrower under that certain Credit Agreement (as amended, modified,
supplemented and extended from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”) dated as
of August 12, 2003 among BioReliance Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“BioReliance”), BioReliance (Glasgow) Ltd., a Scottish private limited company
(the “Foreign Borrower”; together with BioReliance, the “Borrowers”), the
Guarantors identified therein, the Lenders identified therein, and Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Security Trustee and L/C Issuer.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings
provided in the Credit Agreement.


The Borrower promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of each
Revolving Loan from the date of such Revolving Loan until such principal amount
is paid in full, at such interest rates and at such times as provided in the
Credit Agreement. All payments of principal and interest shall be made to the
Administrative Agent for the account of the Lender in Dollars in immediately
available funds at the Administrative Agent’s Office. If any amount is not
paid in full when due hereunder, such unpaid amount shall bear interest, to be
paid upon demand, from the due date thereof until the date of actual payment
(and before as well as after judgment) computed at the per annum rate set forth
in the Credit Agreement.


This Note is one of the Notes referred to in the Credit Agreement, is entitled
to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the
terms and conditions provided therein. Upon the occurrence and continuation of
one or more of the Events of Default specified in the Credit Agreement, all
amounts then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to
be, immediately due and payable all as provided in the Credit Agreement.
Revolving Loans made by the Lender may be evidenced by one or more loan
accounts or records maintained by the Lender in the ordinary course of
business. The Lender may also attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon
the date, amount and maturity of its Revolving Loans and payments with respect
thereto.


The Borrower, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence,
presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest, demand, dishonor and
nonpayment of this Note.


THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK.





	 	 	 	 
	 	
    BIORELIANCE CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation
	 
	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	
	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
Upda1e ~ Estimated Costs: 

1\ction Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Pa11s Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) (include cost (labor l u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

111 pu 111111 (l j I Ill 

l ll 

--

The known number of products in compliance: 

Tota l Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: " $ 0 

Costs covered under warrant) (if known) s ..... 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 1\ction Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g .. Inspection. (include access. (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

Inspection -'-

8 
Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory 

YES* D NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? @ 

YES* D 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 0 

YES D NO IZI 

Explanation: Intr·astate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? @ 

YES* D NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

9
No. 51529.

#### Protests 97663-K, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The evidence showed that the locomotives were used exclusively in international traffic. From the record it was clear that the protests in question are on all fours with the case of *F. W. Meyers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 C. C. P. A. 81, C. A. D. 319), wherein such-repairs were held not subject to duty under the Tariff Act of 1930. On authority of that decision the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 49899.

#### Protests 16247-K, etc., of Rosenblum Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the cheese in question is similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Wheeler*(32 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 280) the protests were sustained to this extent.
%change 95% LCI 95% UCI %change 95% LCI 95% UCI %change 

CO PMN ‐2.186 ‐5.69 1.318 0.778 ‐2.4249 3.981 1.

Band Cells ‐7.7011 ‐20.2132 4.811 5.0252 ‐5.5635 15.6139 ‐4.0

Lymphocytes 4.7108 0.4784 8.9432 2.7488 ‐0.9792 6.4768 0.Monocytes 7.2745 ‐5.5522 20.1012 ‐7.1791 ‐18.03 3.6717 7.9

Platelets ‐0.3913 ‐1.6827 0.9001 ‐0.8384 ‐1.9607 0.284 ‐0.0

NO PMN ‐0.2397 ‐3.262 2.7826 2.6829 ‐0.4756 5.8414 1.

Band Cells ‐4.4509 ‐15.3689 6.4672 6.8466 ‐4.0235 17.7166 ‐2.6

Lymphocytes 4.2204 0.5874 7.8533 2.2386 ‐1.4761 5.9534 0.Monocytes 12.305 0.9252 23.6848 ‐10.4289 ‐22.1923 1.3345 12.Platelets 0.5288 ‐0.5936 1.6512 ‐0.679 ‐1.8168 0.4588 ‐0

NO2 PMN ‐2.833 ‐6.576 0.9101 ‐0.9189 ‐4.7294 2.8915 1.

Band Cells ‐7.543 ‐20.6206 5.5347 1.7655 ‐10.629 14.1601 ‐2.5

Lymphocytes 2.8165 ‐1.7456 7.3787 1.8329 ‐2.5714 6.2372 1.

Monocytes ‐0.236 ‐13.6668 13.1948 ‐2.7023 ‐15.8727 10.468 5.

Platelets ‐1.238 ‐2.6124 0.1364 ‐0.5419 ‐1.8601 0.7764 0.

0‐23h 24‐47h 

Copy of InhalTox_Figures_Estimates.xls

Figure11 of 1
%change 95% LCI 95% UCI %change 95% LCI 95% UCI %change 

PM10 PMN ‐1.1187 ‐3.7901 1.5526 1.1028 ‐1.3147 3.5204 1.811

Band Cells 4.0175 ‐6.0935 14.1286 3.4893 ‐5.3349 12.3135 1.888Lymphocytes 1.0592 ‐2.1094 4.2279 0.7883 ‐2.0263 3.6029 ‐0.5752 

Monocytes 6.7865 ‐4.9489 18.5219 ‐0.6113 ‐10.1238 8.9013 3.120

Platelets ‐0.0535 ‐1.1887 1.0818 ‐0.3191 ‐1.3247 0.6865 ‐0.0805 

ACP PMN ‐6.1337 ‐10.4192 ‐1.8481 ‐3.7458 ‐8.5723 1.0807 ‐1.4579 

Band Cells ‐1.2943 ‐20.5217 17.933 12.6359 ‐5.0243 30.2961 5.2034 Lymphocytes 0.5155 ‐5.021 6.052 ‐0.2384 ‐5.5902 5.1134 ‐1.3476 

Monocytes ‐3.9989 ‐22.2289 14.2311 0.325 ‐14.152 14.802 10.2119 

Platelets ‐1.9007 ‐3.7198 ‐0.0816 ‐1.6885 ‐3.396 0.019 ‐0.6087 

UFP PMN ‐2.5592 ‐5.7918 0.6733 1.1844 ‐2.0956 4.4643 ‐0.4742 

Band Cells ‐4.9764 ‐16.1181 6.1653 2.6076 ‐9.0215 14.2368 ‐7.8914 

Lymphocytes 0.2766 ‐3.5166 4.0697 0.7219 ‐3.2209 4.6646 ‐0.0482 

Monocytes 8.9466 ‐1.3767 19.27 1.1494 ‐10.796 13.0947 25.9947 

Platelets 0.167 ‐1.0434 1.3775 0.0393 ‐1.2744 1.353 0.2168 

0‐23h 24‐47h 

Copy of InhalTox_Figures_Estimates.xls

Figure21 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 74168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AD22-11-000; AD21-9-000]


Office of Public Participation Fundamentals for Participating in 
FERC Matters; Supplemental Notice of Pre-Recorded Workshop: 
``Fundamentals of Intervention in FERC Matters''

    Filing a Motion to Intervene or Intervention is the procedural 
pathway to becoming a party in a proceeding at Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC). On October 25, 2023, Office of Public 
Participation (OPP) staff made publicly available the educational video 
of WorkshOPP: Fundamentals of Intervention in FERC Matters. This video 
is available on www.ferc.gov/OPP and on FERC's YouTube channel under 
OPP's Playlist at https://www.youtube.com/@FERC/playlists or at https://youtu.be/C-nkONjA4Mk. Spanish captioning is available on the video.
    WorkshOPP: ``Fundamentals of Intervention in FERC Matters'' 
explains how and why a member of the public may choose to intervene in 
energy infrastructure projects (natural gas pipelines, liquefied 
natural gas (LNG) terminals, or hydroelectric dams) proceedings, and/or 
electric rates proceedings. Staff also addresses common questions about 
filing an intervention and demonstrate how to submit a Motion to 
Intervene using FERC online.

    Dated: October 24, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23909 Filed 10-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
A90A0258.

#### HOLLOWAY v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 123)

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Ulysses Holloway, was convicted of obstruction of a correctional officer. When Holloway became aggressive as he was being escorted by correctional officers to the prison hospital ward, the officers decided to return him to his cell. After one correctional officer removed the handcuffs on Holloway so that a strip search could be conducted, Holloway swung at and missed another officer, but struck a third officer. Several officers then physically subdued Holloway. At trial Holloway testified that he struck the correctional officer only be*526cause the latter had struck him first.

Decided January 24, 1990

Rehearing denied February 14, 1990.

*Joel E. Williams, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Stephen Archer, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Holloway’s sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. However, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence certainly authorized a rational trier of fact to find Holloway guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,308
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,187
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,075
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    150,525
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,038
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            54,371
<LOANS>                                        151,871
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,508
<DEPOSITS>                                     355,330
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,686
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,800
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 392,508
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,003
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,151
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,154
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,202
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,203
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,851
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,042
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,042
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       895
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                         29
<LOANS-PAST>                                        69
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,200
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      108
<RECOVERIES>                                       103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,295
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,295
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Benjamin H. Klein

L AW O FFICES OF P AUL A. L ANGE

, LLC

80 Ferry Boulevard

Stratford, CT 06615

Phone: (203) 375

- 7724

Fax: (203) 375

- 9397

bhk@lopal.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Pro

- Flight Avi ation , Inc.

Complainant,

v. Docket No. 16

- 15

- 03

City of Renton

, Washington

Respondent.

/

JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENS ION OF TIME

Complainant Pro

- Flight Aviation, Inc. (“PFA ”) and Respondent City of Renton,

Washington’s (“City” or “Resp ondent”) , pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.1 9 (e)

, hereby file this

joint motion for an extens i on of time. In support of this joint motion

, the parties aver as

follows:

1. On January 28, 2015

, PFA filed a Part 16 Complaint (“Complaint”) against

R espondent

.

2. On August 7, 201 5 , Respondent filed and served its answer (“Answer”) to the

Complaint

.2 3. Pursuant to the Part 16 rules of procedure, a reply to Respondent’s Answer is

due within 10 days of service

. 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(e). Accordingly, PFA’s reply (‘Reply”) is

currently due on August 17 , 2015

.

4. Complainant respectfully requests a 17

- day extension of time to submit its

Reply , making such due on or before September 3, 2015. If this request is granted,

Respondent’s rebuttal (“Rebuttal”) would be due on or before September 14, 201 5. 14 C.F.R

§ 16.23(f). Respondent respectfully requests a 24

- day extension of time to submit its

rebuttal, making such due on or before October 8, 2015.

5. These joint request s for an extension of time are not being made to delay the

proceeding. Counsel f

or both Complainant and Respondent have previously scheduled work

and personal commitments that conflict with the deadlines imposed by the Part 16 rules.

Accordingly

, their requests for an extension of time are both necessary and appropriate “for a

fair an d complete consideration of the matters before the agency.” §16.11(a).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that: (a) PFA be granted a n

extension of time until September 3, 2015 to file its Reply; and (b) the City be gra nted an

extension of time until Octo ber 8, 2015 to file its Rebuttal

.3

Dated August 12 , 2015

Respectfully submitted,

/s/_________

__________ Benjamin H. Klein

L AW O FFICES OF P

AUL A. L ANGE

, LLC

80 Ferry Boulevard

Stratford, CT 06615

Phone: (203) 375

- 7724

Fax: (203) 375

- 9397

bhk@lopal.com

Attorney for Complainant

/s/___________________

Z anetta L. Fontes

Senior Assistant City Attorney

City of Renton, Washington

1055 South Grady Way

Renton, WA 98057

Phone: (425) 430

- 6486

Fax:(425) 430

- 6498

zfontes@rentonwa.gov

Attorney for Respondent4 CERTIFICAT E OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing Joint Motion for Extension

of Time to be served electronically, with prior written consent, on the following:

Zanetta L. Fontes

Senior Assistant City Attorney

1055 South Grady Way

Ren ton, WA 98057

zfontes@rentonwa.gov

Dated August 12, 2015

_/s/_________________________

Benjamin H. Klein
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark Jarvis, of Giga Metals Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 20-F of Giga Metals Corporation
for the year ended December 31, 2017 (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 Giga
Metals Corporation.

Dated: April 30, 2018

Mark
      JarvisMark JarvisChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


---
No. 52838.

#### Stanley Belting Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 48760-K/89977 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose anything that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. 50793.

#### Protest 58546-K of D. A. Bernstein (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 67696.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/3979 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

April 17, 1957

No. 60652.

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States

protest 280405-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass bead Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1445), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 19, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00307

- CR

Marc Trace Wyatt, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES PEMBERTON AN D FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay c osts, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
03/08/2006




Ms.
      Nikora Groomes  **Via
      UPS**


Wells
      Fargo Bank, N.A. (410)
      884-2020


Corporate
      Trust Services


9062
      Old
      Annapolis Road


Columbia,
      MD


USA 21045-1951




Merril
      Lynch Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates,


Series
      2005-MCP1


Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement




**OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE**




Pursuant
      to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing
      the referenced Trust (the "PSA"), it is hereby certified that (i) the undersigned
      has completed a review of the servicer's performance of its obligations under
      the
      PSA for the preceding calendar year; (ii) to the best of the undersigned's knowledge
      on the basis of that review the servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under
      the
      PSA throughout such period in all material respects; (iii) to the best of the undersigned's
      knowledge, the subservicer, of the servicer under the PSA, if any, has fulfilled
      its obligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects;
      and, (iv)
      no
      notice has been received from any governmental agency or body which would indicate
      a challenge or question as to the status of the Trust's qualification as a REMIC
      under the U.S. Code.




/s/
      Steven W. Smith     
3/8/06


Steven
      W.
      Smith   Date


Executive Vice President
No. 58821.

protest 222921-K (New York).

#### B. G. Cury Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

When the case was first called for trial, it developed that duty had not been paid. After several continuances of the case, it was again called for trial. There was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, and the case was ordered submitted by the court. Following Abstract 54925, it was held that since the duty was not paid the court had no jurisdiction, and the protest was dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

March 12, 1958

No. 61678.

#### Ucagco, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 303507-K (B) (Baltimore).

*487Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of 6-inch earthenware cereal saucers, valued at $1.98 per dozen pieces, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THECHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C §1350

 

I, Stephanie Bowman, the Chief Financial Officer ofTuesday Morning Corporation, hereby certify that:

 

1.              The quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Tuesday Morning Corporation for the period ended December 31, 2009fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              The information contained in theabove-mentioned report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Tuesday Morning Corporation.

 
| Date: January 28, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Stephanie Bowman    |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   | Stephanie Bowman        |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----