alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


KANEB SERVICES, INC.
CORPORATE
INSURERS LTD
KANEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Kaneb Investment, L.L.C.
KANEB (BVI) CORP.
FURMANITE GERMANY, INC.
Management Services Furmanite Holding GmbH
Furmanite Technische Dienstleisfungen GmbH (formerly Zweipack GmbH)
Furmanite Industrie Service GmbH
KANEB EQUIPMENT LEASING COMPANY, INC.
Furmanite Equipment Leasing Company, Inc.
KANEB INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
Kaneb Information Technologies, Inc.
InformaTech, Inc.
GreenTree Software and Services, Inc.
Ellsworth Associates, Inc.
Ellsworth Medical Services, Inc.
National Asset Acceptance, Inc.
Asset Based Lenders, Inc.
National Asset Information Services, Inc.
Fields Financial Services, Inc. (formerly Kaneb Metering Corp.)
Fields Data Management
CPIA, Inc.
Viata Corporation
FURMANITE WORLDWIDE, INC. (formerly Kaneb International, Inc.)
Furmanite America Inc.
Kaneb Energy Canada, Ltd.
Furmanite Offshore Services, Inc.
Furmanite Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Denon Pty Ltd)
Furmanite V & P Engineering Ltd (formerly V & P Engineering Ltd)
Furmanite Holding AS
Furmanite AS (Norway)
CMS:  Corrision Monitoring Services AS
Furmanite SA
Furmanite NV
Metalock NV (Belgium)
Furmeta Holding BV
Metaholding BV
Metalock BV
Furmanite BV
Furmanite East Asia Ltd (Hong Kong)
Furmanite Singapore PTE Ltd.
Furmanite plc (formerly Kaneb UK plc)
Furmanite 1986 LTD
Furmanite International LTD
KANEB PIPE LINE COMPANY
Kaneb Pipe Line Partners, L.P.
Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership, L.P.
Support Terminal Operating Partnership, L.P.
ST Services Ltd
ST Eastham  Ltd.
ST Linden Terminal, LLC
Support Terminal Services, Inc.
StanTrans, Inc.
StanTrans Holding, Inc.
StanTrans Partners, L.P.
Kaneb Management Company, Inc.
Diamond K Limited
Kaneb Management, L.L.C.
Martin Oil Corporation
TEXAS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 21, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
WILFORD CARL THOMPSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TERRY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-5037 (D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00738-TCK-TLW) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before HARTZ , McKAY , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges. Petitioner Wilford Thompson seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 federal habeas petition. Petitioner is currently serving a life sentence following his Oklahoma state court convictions for first-degree murder, possession of a stolen vehicle, and first-degree burglary. In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner raised several claims for relief, including two jury instruction challenges, an argument relating to the introduction of evidence regarding his prior convictions during the sentencing phase of his jury trial, multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.counsel, and a claim of cumulative error. The district court denied Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus in a twenty-nine page opinion that explained in detail why each claim did not entitle Petitioner to relief under federal law. In his application for a certificate of appealability, Petitioner focuses on his arguments relating to the lack of a jury instruction on lesser-included offenses, the introduction of his prior convictions during the sentencing phase of his trial, defense counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness relating to these two issues, and his claim of cumulativeerror. As the district court explained, a state court’s failure to instruct the jury on lesserincluded offenses in a non-capital case does not give rise to habeas relief. See Lujan v. Tansy , 2 F.3d 1031, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). As for the evidence of Petitioner’s prior convictions during the sentencing phase of his trial, this error only had the potential to affect Petitioner’s sentence, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals already granted Petitioner all the relief to which he was entitled by modifying his sentence from life without parole to the statutory minimum sentence of life with the possibility of parole. Petitioner’s arguments on these points also fail to demonstrate that his attorney provided ineffective assistance or that these alleged errors cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial. After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this

case. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

. Accordingly, for substantially

-2-the same reasons given by the district court, we DENYPetitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

-3-
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) ll-E-4 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:45AM

Sheet 22 of 86P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 ll-E-4 0
UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e ofAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s •jaKu ) a

. Willi e u i ni l <t_uaiu yi laniiui yau u oianuaiu s i ^.I/JL" Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 7< ' rft \\ ' :l 

### ' • DE C 1B199 Z '"< < PRO^ ° Apri l 13 , 199 2 MEMORANDU

M T O TH E DOCKE T 1 « .^^
- SUBJECT : Meeting wit hAmerica n Petroleu mInstitut e t o discus s th e Sourc e CategoryLis t FROM : Davi d J . Svendsgaar d _ _ Chemical s an

d Petroleiim'feranchY/fiS D Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandu mi s t o memorializ e fo r Docke t Numbe r A-90-4 9 tha t a meetin g occurre d Novembe r 8 , 199 1 betwee n representative s o f EPAan d th e America n Petroleu mInstitut e (API) . Th e attendee s ar e liste d below . Th e topic s discusse d were :

- genera l overvie wo f th e industrie s represente d b yAP I

- Clea n Ai r Ac t exemptio n fo r individua l oi l wel l head s [§112(n)(4)(a) ]

- disaggregatio n o f Petroleu mRefinerie s

- Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P applicabilit y

- emission s averagin g

- futur e interactio n wit hth e industryo n regulation s an d permit s EPAconclude d th e meetin g b yprovidin g th e curren t statu s o f th e sourc e categorylis t project , including th e anticipate d timefram e fo r fina l publication . ATTENDEES : Chuc k French , EPA/PAB Da n Gealy , Arc o Stev e Shedd , EPA/CP B Bo b Strieter , AP I Davi d Svendsgaard , EPA/CP B Susa n Wyatt , EPA/CP B
No. 51405.

#### Protest 557061-G of Fujii Junichi Shoten, Ltd. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was conceded that the fish is identical in all material respects with that passed upon in *United States*v. *Enbun*(19 C. C. P. A. 79, T. D. 45224) wherein the merchandise was found to be “dried, unsalted fish, known as bonita, which had been shaved or shredded,” the court concluding that “the language ‘dried fish’ is more specific than the general language fish ‘otherwise prepared or preserved’.” Following the statutory construction applied in the cited ease, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT
32.1 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position
prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully
described in the Report); and





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








Dated:
November 5, 2008





BY: /s/ Leo Liebowitz


(Signature)


LEO
LIEBOWITZ


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON, No. CIV-S-04-1317 MCE/GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

J. FANNON, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On April 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 32 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

On May 18, 2005 and June 10, 2005, plaintiff was granted

extensions of time, in which to file and serve his objections. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ December 1, 2004, motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied as to the

following claims: 1) defendant Kissinger used excessive force on

June 30, 2003; 2) on July 1, 2003, defendant DeForest confiscated

plaintiff’s orthotics inserts and shoes; defendant Lynn refused

to help in retrieving these items; 3) defendant DeForest denied

plaintiff’s request for accommodations so that he could

participate in Ramadhan; and 4) all claims against defendants

Ratliff and Epperson regarding the events of January 20, 2004;

defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is granted in all other respects; 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 32 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Defendants’ December 1, 2004, motion to dismiss for

failure to allege a physical injury pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(e) is denied as to plaintiff’s claims that defendants

Ratliff and Epperson refused to retrieve his pain medication,

prescribed cotton blanket, orthotic inserts and tennis shoes; the

motion to dismiss for failure to allege a physical injury is

granted as to the remaining claims against defendants Ratliff and

Epperson.

3. Defendants Kissinger, DeForest, Lynn, Ratliff and

Epperson shall file an answer within twenty days of the date of

this order.

DATED: August 25, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 32 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3
Case No. 9,764a.

#### MOORE v. HOFFMAN.

[2 Hayw. & H. 173] 2

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. 6, 1854.

Descent and Distribution — Adoptf.d Child — ■ Will.

An adopted child cannot inherit property in this District, unless by will.

Appeal from the orphans’ court

[Petitioner claimed that] Thos. Moore, deceased, was the petitioner’s father, and in proof thereof produced his indentures of apprenticeship, in which he was described as the son of Thomas Moore, and many witnesses testified to the fact of Thomas Moore speaking of, and acknowledging Mm as his son. The appellee, Mary Hoffman, the sister of the deceased, denied that the said Richard H. Moore was the son of the said Thomas Moore, or that he ever had a child, and therefore claimed, as next of kin, to be entitled to the administration of the estate of Thos. Moore, and produced proof, that the wife of said Thomas Moore was never delivered of a cMld, and that Richard H. Moore was the son of another woman, delivered at the house of said Thomas Moore and abandoned by her, and by said Thomas Moore adopted.

The following is the decision of Wm. F., Purcell, judge of the orphans’ court.

“I have examined the evidence in this case with care, as well as the laws referred to by the counsel, Messrs. Carrington and Wallach, for the parties, and decide that Richard H. Moore, the petitioner, is not the legitimate child of the deceased, but was raised by him and adopted as his son. The law in such cases does not allow such persons to inherit property unless it be willed to them, according to the statute in such cases made and provided. The petition of said Moore is therefore dismissed, and the next of .kin of the deceased applying for the same will be appointed.”

Carrington & Davidge. for appellant.

Bradley & Wallach, for appellee.

On appeal to the circuit court the case was fully argued by counsel.

2

 [Reported by John A. Hayward, Esq., and George C. Hazelton, Esq.]

THE COURT

affirmed the decision of the orphans’ court, and decided that Mrs. Hoffman had the right to the estate as next of kin to Thomas Moore.
Before the Second Division,

July 8, 1942

No. 47363.

#### Protests 72226-K, etc., of Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the,authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Saitta 

J. 

FISMESTIO 0f2ZOOMM 

(1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). 

Therefore, extraordinary relief is not warranted, and we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Gibbons 

4it:s J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

- 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALMIRA SWYGERT, as personal representative of the 

estate of Julia Myers,

Appellant,

v.

PSL REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, LLC, d/b/a PORT ST. 

LUCIE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-571

[January 26, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Laurie E. Buchanan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562021CA000555AXXXHC.

Lindsey E. Gale and Matthew T. Christ of Domnick Cunningham & 

Whalen, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.

Lisa M. Munoz and Thomas E. Jablonski of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

MAY, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO 
STACK TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND LICENSE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 10, 2016.


BY AND BETWEEN


		
	(1)
	POSCO Energy Co., Ltd., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, having its principal place of business at POSCO Center, 440 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-777, Korea (“POSCO Energy”); and 




		
	(2)
	FuelCell Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 3 Great Pasture Rd., Danbury, CT 06810, U.S.A. (“FCE”). 




POSCO Energy and FCE are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”    


RECITALS


WHEREAS, POSCO Energy and FCE are parties to a series of technology transfer agreements identified as follows:


		
	(a)
	the Alliance Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2007 (the “AA”);


		
	(b)
	the Technology Transfer, Distribution and Licensing Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2007, (the “TTA”);  


		
	(c)
	the Stack Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 27, 2009 (the “STTA”); and


		
	(d)
	the Cell Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 31, 2012 (the “CTTA”);


all as amended, and among other agreements; and


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Term of the STTA, as amended previously on January 25, 2011 and October 31, 2012, respectively, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual promises made herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 8.1 of Article VIII of the STTA is replaced in its entirety by the following:




8.1 Term.  The initial term of this Agreement (the “Initial Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions set forth herein, on October 31, 2027.




Except as set forth in this Amendment, the STTA is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  

















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year written below.


	
					
	POSCO Energy Co., Ltd.
	 
	 
	FuelCell Energy, Inc.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:  /s/ Tong-Wood Shim
	 
	 
	By:  /s/ Michael S. Bishop
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name: Tong-Wook Shim
	 
	 
	Name: Michael S. Bishop
	 

	Title: Executive Vice President,
	 
	 
	Title: Senior Vice President,
	 

	         Chief Financial Officer    
	 
	 
	         Chief Financial Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:    October 10, 2016
	 
	 
	Date:  October 13, 2016
No. 48494.

#### Protests 90512-K, etc., of F. C. G. Importers, Inc., et al. (San Francisco, etc.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

p0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

138293 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138293 

 COA: 279651 

Alpena CC: 04-006014-FH 

MATTHEW JEFFREY WOOLL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Before the First Division,

September 14, 1949

No. 53544.

petition 6559-R (Detroit).

#### Paul Steketee & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 10.1.s

                       FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                        CREDIT AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Credit Agreement ("First Amendment")
is made and entered into effective as of October 23, 2001, by and
between  KLT  Telecom Inc. ("Lender") and Digital Teleport,  Inc.
("Borrower").   Unless specifically defined  herein,  capitalized
terms  and  phrases used in this First Amendment shall  have  the
meanings  given  those terms and phrases in the Credit  Agreement
(as hereinafter defined).

      WHEREAS,  Lender and Borrower are parties to  that  certain
Credit  Agreement,  dated as of September 25, 2001  (the  "Credit
Agreement"); and

      WHEREAS, Lender and Borrower now desire to amend the Credit
Agreement;

      NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good and valuable consideration,  the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,  Lender
and Borrower hereby agree as follows:

     1.    AMENDMENT.  Schedule 5.08 to the Credit  Agreement  is
hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as set  forth
in Exhibit A attached hereto.

     2.    CONTINUING EFFECT.  Except as amended and modified  by
this  First Amendment, the Credit Agreement shall remain in  full
force and effect.

      IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, Lender and Borrower have executed  and
delivered  this  First Amendment effective as of the  date  first
above written.

KLT TELECOM INC.                 DIGITAL TELEPORT, INC.

By:  /s/Mark R. Schroeder        By:  /s/ Gary W. Douglass
Name:     Mark R. Schroeder      Name:     Gary W. Douglass
Title:    President              Title:    SVP & CFO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6942
In Re: ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-666-7) Submitted: August 9, 2002 Decided: August 30, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Gooden has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court to compel the district court to expedite its consideration of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re: Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Gooden has failed to make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying mandamus relief. Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering Gooden’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32



KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Registrant), does hereby certify
with respect to the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) 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 Registrant.



|/s/ Edward L. Stern, |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |  | Date: September 24, 2003
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.