alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 the Quarterly Report of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gail P. Seneca, Chairman of the Board of Directorsand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: November 9, 2006       By: /s/ GAIL P. SENECA Gail P. Seneca    Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toLuminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and will be retained by Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 21.1****Subsidiaries of the Registrant**       **State or Other Jurisdiction of** **Name** **Incorporation or Organization** Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company Indiana Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation Indiana IrwinCommercial Finance Corporation Equipment Finance, Indiana Irwin Equipment Lease Funding, LLC Delaware Irwin Franchise Capital Corporation Indiana Irwin International Corporation Edge Act IrwinCommercial Finance Canada Corporation Canada Onset Alberta, Ltd. Canada Irwin Union Securities, Inc. Indiana Irwin Union Collateral, Inc. Indiana Irwin Union Insurance, Inc. Indiana Irwin Union Advisory Services, Inc. Indiana Irwin Union Realty Corporation Indiana Irwin Home Equity Corporation IndianaIHE Funding Corp. II Delaware Irwin Mortgage Corporation IndianaIrwin Reinsurance Corporation Vermont Irwin Union Investor Services, Inc. Indiana IFC Capital Trust VI Delaware
 

 
       **State or Other Jurisdiction of** **Name** **Incorporation or Organization** IFC Statutory Trust VII Connecticut IFC Capital Trust VIII Delaware IFC Capital Trust IX Delaware IFC Capital Trust X Delaware IFC Capital Trust XI Delaware IFC Mortgage Corporation Indiana Irwin Residual Holdings Corporation IndianaIrwin Funding Corp. DelawareIrwin Funding Corp. II Delaware Irwin Residual Holdings Corporation II IndianaIHE Funding Corp. DelawareIrwin Union Bank, F.S. B. FederalIrwin FSB Collateral, Inc. IndianaIrwin Equipment Finance Corporation IndianaIrwin Leasing Corporation IllinoisIrwin Ventures LLC DelawareIrwin Ventures SBIC LLC Delaware
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

SUSAN A. PRICE,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1235-GEB-DAD-PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONAL

TRAINING FACILITY, SOLEDAD,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On March 21, 2006, 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 ten days. 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.

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 84 Filed 05/02/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 21, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and this action is

dismissed.

Dated: May 1, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 84 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

21. Subsidiaries of the registrant

                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
                            -------------------------

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
3 Allee des Garays,  BP 60
91122 Palaiseau Cedex

GERMANY:  Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
D-82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
The Minister, 58 Portman Road
Reading (London), Berkshire RG30 1EA

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Avenlingen West 49
4202 MS Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments SA
Kriesbachstrasse 4
8600 Dubendorf (Zurich)
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00 238 - CR

RODERICK A. WILLIAMS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

-- -------- I respectfully concur with the majority opinion. Williams’s sole issue is that his sentence was excessive and disproportionate, but he did not object to his sentence at the time it was imposed or complain about it in a motion for new trial. We h ave held on numerous occasions that this type of claim must be preserved at the trial court level. See Kim v. State , 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

— Fort

1 See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.2

Worth 2009, pet. ref ’ d); Acosta v. State , 160 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); se e also Cisneros v. State , No. 02

- 06

- 00103

- CR, 2007 WL 80002, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 23, 2007, pet. re f’ d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting cases); cf. Burt v. State , 396 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“A sentencing i ssue may be preserved by objecting at the punishment hearing, or when the sentence is pronounced.”). The court of criminal appeals has explained, Preservation of error is a systemic requirement on appeal. If an issue has not been preserved for appeal, ne ither the court of appeals nor this Court should address the merits of that issue. Ordinarily, a court of appeals should review preservation of error on its own motion, but if it does not do so expressly, this Court can and should do so when confronted wit h a preservation question

. Wilson v. State , 311 S.W.3d 452, 473

– 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Ford v. State , 305 S.W.3d 530, 532

– 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009 ) ); see Clay v. State , 361 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). Because Williams did not raise his complaint in the trial court, the complaint is forfeited. I would overrule his issue based on preservation. Because the majority instead reaches the merits of Williams’s complaint, I respectfully concur

.

/s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE MCCOY, J. , joins.3

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELI VERED: April 24, 2014
(Reap. Dec. 10399)

Entry No. 15976.

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

(Decided December 13, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the-defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain steel tubing and casing, imported from Italy, is the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact which reads as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise consists of seamless steel tubing and seamless steel casing, exported from Italy, and that the facts and the law are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *Dalminter, Inc., R. W. Smith,*47 Cust. Ct. 577, A.R.D. 135.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. 135 be incorporated with the record in this ease.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at which such or similar imported merchandise was freely offered for sale for consumption in the United States, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, were the prices shown on Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof less 2 per cent cash discount less 7.60 per cent for general expenses and 7.15 per cent for profit less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton less inland freight of $6.00 per metric ton less duty of 12% per cent on tubing or 7% per cent on casing.

Upon the agreed facts of record and following the cited authority, the court finds and holds that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C., § 1402(e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the steel tubing and casing in issue and that said value is represented by the prices shown on schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision, less 2 per centum cash discount, less 7.60 per centum for general expenses and 7.15 per centum for profit, less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton, less inland freight of $6 per metric ton, less duty of 12% per centum on tubing or 7% per centum on casing.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
April 15, 1948

No. 52274.

Suit 4586.

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

C. D. 1069. (Appeal dismissed January 27, 1948.)
September 9, 1949

No. 53543.

Suit 4601.

#### United States *v.*Dixie Supply Co.

affirmed June 28, 1949. C. A. D. 412.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Kives, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

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

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| By                                   | /s/ PHILIP KIVES |   |
|--------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Philip Kives                         |             |
| *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,* |             |   |
| *President and Director*             |             |   |
| September 18, 2006                   |             |   |
|                                      |                  |        |  |  |

 

----
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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYON CHAPMAN, et al., 

NO. CIV. S-04-1520 FCD/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

PARK WEST OFFICE CENTER, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of the plaintiffs in the above action the court has

determined that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, dispositional documents are to

be filed on or before March 27, 2006. All dates set in this matter, including any pending

motions, are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01520-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARMERS’ RICE COOPERATIVE,

NO. CIV. S-04-1595 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE DISPOSAL

DOCUMENTS AFTER

THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

Defendant.

 /

Counsel have informed the court that the parties have settled

the above-captioned case. The court now orders that the

dispositional documents disposing of the case be filed no later

than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order.

All hearing dates heretofore set in this matter are hereby

VACATED.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01595-LKK -DAD Document 28 Filed 05/19/05 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

2

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL OR PARTIES WHO

CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01595-LKK -DAD Document 28 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 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

27

28 Marshall v. Castro, et al [CIV S 04-1657]/[Proposed] Order of Dismissal (Cullison) Page 1

WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES

1250 Sutterville Road, Suite 290

Sacramento, CA 95822

(916) 456-1122

(916) 737-1126 (fax)

Kathleen J. Williams, CSB #127021

Erick C. Turner,CSB #236186

Attorneys for defendants

JOSEPH HEADLEY, JAMES CASTRO,

LEONARD MOLLOY and MARGARET CULLISON 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEPUTY CASTRO, SOLANO

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

et al., 

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: CIV-S 04-1657 DFL PAN P

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

OF DEFENDANT MARGARET CULLISON

The Court having received on February 21, 2006 and accepted the stipulation by 

plaintiff and defendants to this case requesting a dismissal of this matter with prejudice

as to defendant MARGARET CULLISON, hereby orders this case dismissed with

prejudice as to defendant CULLISON. This dismissal shall take effect immediately.

Dated: May 3, 2006

/s/ David F. Levi 

David F. Levi, United States

District Court Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 97 Filed 05/03/06 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

27

28 Marshall v. Castro, et al [CIV S 04-1657]/[Proposed] Order of Dismissal (Cullison) Page 2

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Case : Marshall v. Solano

Case #: CIV S- 04-1657 DFL PAN P

Court : USDC, Eastern District

I certify that on May 3, 2006 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b), I mailed a true copy of the

document entitled: 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT MARGARET CULLISON

and addressed as follows:

Jeffrey Marshall

1243 Mayfield Circle

Suisun City, CA 94585

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose

direction this service was made.

DATED: May 3, 2006

By: /s/ Susan Joyce Olsson 

SUSAN JOYCE OLSSON

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 97 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4485 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 

consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BRAUN, Ms. 

LUMMIS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCHMITT, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

5 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4485 IS

1 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

2 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

3 RULES’’. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

8 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con9 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

10 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

11 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

12 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

13 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’ after 

15 ‘‘(a)’’; 

16 (2) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

17 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

18 this subsection)’’; and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(2) JOINT RESOLUTIONS UNDER SECTION

21 801(D)(4).—In the case of a joint resolution under section 

22 801(d)(4), the matter after the resolving clause of such 

23 resolution shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

24 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll relating 

25 to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll relating to 

26 ll. Such rules shall have no force or effect.’ (The blank 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4485 IS

1 spaces being appropriately filled in and additional clauses 

2 describing additional rules to be included as necessary).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy Incorporated (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andrea F. Bielsker, as Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

(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.

|             | /s/Michael J. Chesser                                                                      
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |                                                                                            
|Name:
Title: | Michael J. Chesser
Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer                       
|Date:        | March 10, 2004                                                                             
|             |                                                                                            
|             | /s/Andrea F. Bielsker                                                                      
|             |                                                                                            
|Name:
Title: | Andrea F. Bielsker 
Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial 
Officer and Treasurer
|Date:        | March 10, 2004                                                                             

This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Plains Energy Incorporated and will be retained by Great Plains Energy Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00138-CV

D. SCOTT SONNTAG AND REAGAN GREENHAW,

Appellants

v.

CLEBURNE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. T201400301

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notified the parties in an October 20, 2016 letter that the 

appellant’s brief was overdue in this cause and that the appeal may be dismissed if a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was not filed within twenty-one 

days. No response has been filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
Sonntag v. Cleburne Indep. Sch. Dist. Page 2

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2016

[CV06]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kent A. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ KENT A. MURPHY                   
|Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.                
|President and Chief Executive Officer

August 7, 2008