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 G2 Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2008 (the Report), I, Gust Kepler, 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:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Gust Kepler        
|Gust Kepler            
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 12, 2008        

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 22 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Je rem y Edward Nebe ke r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 27 , 20 12 Fi le d: Decem

be r 3, 2 01 2 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Je rem y Edwar d Nebek er dir ect ly ap pe al s afte r he pl ed gu il ty to at te m pt in g to
rece iv e ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (b )(1 ), an d th ed i s t ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 13 5 m on th s in pr is on an d a li fet im e of su pe rv is e d 1

r e l e a s e
. Neb ek er’s co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at th e se nt en ce is un reas on ab le

.
Neb ek er pl ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t. The pl ea ag reem en t
co nt ai ne d an ap pe al waiv er th at in cl ud ed wit hi n it s sc op e ch al le ng es to th e se nt en ce ba se d on un reas on ab le ne ss
. W e co nc lu de th at th e ap pe al waiv er is en fo rcea bl e. See Uni te d St at e s v
. A n d i s , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (ap pe al waiv er is ge ne ral ly en f

o r c e a b le if ap pe al fal ls wit hi n sc op e of waiv er, bo th waiv er
an d p l e a a g r eem en t were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly, an d en fo rcem en t of waiv er wou ld no t res ul t in m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce). In ad di ti on , we ha ve rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y pu rs ua n t t o Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , an d we ha ve fou nd no no nf

riv ol ou s i ss ue for ap pe al

.
Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s th e ap pe al ba se d on th e ap pe al waiv er, an d we gr an t
co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g ap pe ll an t ab ou t pr oc ed ur es for see ki ng reh eari ng or f il in g a pe ti ti on for cert io rari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11143

Summary Calendar

JESSE F. REECE, SR.,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

WALDEN AFFORDABLE, L.L.C.; FOUNTAINGATE APARTMENTS,

Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CV-00164

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jesse F. Reece, Sr., pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Walden Affordable

L.L.C. and Fountaingate Apartments (collectively “Defendants”) for, among

other things, unlawful discrimination with regard to his eviction from

Fountaingate Apartments. The district court found Reece’s complaint frivolous

and malicious, and dismissed it with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

On appeal, Reece argues that the district court erred by dismissing his case.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 3, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should *

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-11143 Document: 00511193225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2010
No. 09-11143

We have previously held that “in forma pauperis complaints may be

dismissed as frivolous if they seek to relitigate claims that allege substantially

the same facts arising from a common series of events which have already been

unsuccessfully litigated by the plaintiff.” Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994

(5th Cir. 1993). The claims in Reece’s current complaint allege facts that are

virtually identical to the facts in his previous complaint, which the district court

dismissed with prejudice. Reese [sic] v. Fountaingate Apartments, No. 7:08-CV155, 2008 WL 5061642, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008). Both cases allege an

improper eviction in May 2007, a broken oral agreement not to evict, and an

improper use of Reece’s rent money to pay Defendants’ court costs.

Because we find that the district court did not err in dismissing Reece’s

claims as frivolous, we AFFIRM.

2

Case: 09-11143 Document: 00511193225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2010
Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 1 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 2 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 3 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 4 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 5 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 6 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 7 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 8 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 9 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 10 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 11 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 12 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 13 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 14 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 15 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 16 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 17 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 18 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 19 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 20 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 21 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 22 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00217-EAS-NMK Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/12/13 Page: 23 of 23  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T14:58:17-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 10, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00126-CV 

MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC., Appellant 

V. 

NASHIR KARMALI, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17604 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because it no 

longer wishes to pursue the same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

220126F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC., 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-00126-CV V. 

NASHIR KARMALI, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 116th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17604. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee NASHIR KARMALI recover his costs of this 

appeal from appellant MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC. 

Judgment entered May 10, 2022
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit (10)(i)


     STEPHEN E. ROTH
DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158
Internet: sroth@sablaw.com


                                April 26, 2001

Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
6610 West Broad Street
Richmond, Va 23230

          Re   GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4
               ------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 22 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4 for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 33-76334). In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By:  /s/ Stephen E. Roth
                                  --------------------------
                                      Stephen E. Roth
EXHIBIT 99.15



CONSENT OF MICHAEL GABORA



Reference is made to the technical report
entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Cerro Moro Gold-Silver Project, Santa Cruz Province, Argentina” dated
March 30, 2012, which contains certain scientific and technical information related to the Cerro Moro property of Extorre Gold
Mines Limited (the “Technical Report”).



I hereby consent to the inclusion of references
to my name and references to, and information derived from, the Technical Report, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Extorre
Gold Mines Limited, which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated this April 2, 2012.



|/s/ Michael Gabora                                 | 
|-------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  Michael Gabora, B.Sc., M.Sc., PGeo. Ontario |
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 45 13

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e,

v. Bryon Welt on , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Weste rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 21, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Ju ly 27, 2 01 7 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MURPHY, andKELLY , Cir cu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Fed eral pr is on er By ro n W el to n app eal s th e di st ric t cou rt’s or de r co m m it ti ng 1 hi m un de r 18 U.S.C. § 42 45 fo r ho sp it al iz at io n an d m en ta l he al th tre at m en t. Dur in g th e pe nd en cy of th is ap pe al , ho w e v e r , th e di st ric t co urt gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s
m ot io n to di sm is s th e co m m it m en t pe ti ti on an d to tra ns fer W el to n, ci ti ng a rep ort th at W el to n ha d reco ve red an d was read y fo r di sc h a r ge
. Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s th e ap pe al as m oo t. Co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Dou gl as Harp oo l, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep o rt an d reco m m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Dav id P. Ru sh , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri. -2

-
# C_2007183EN.01002002.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

(Case C-253/07)

(2007/C 183/34)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of the exemption contained in Article 13 A (1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (1), does the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, or is it limited to individuals, in the sense of natural persons or human beings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of the exemption contained in Article 13 A (1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (1), does the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, or is it limited to individuals, in the sense of natural persons or human beings?

1

| 2. | If the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ does include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, as well as individuals, does the expression ‘certain services closely linked to sport’ permit a Member State to limit the exemption only to individuals taking part in sport? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ does include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, as well as individuals, does the expression ‘certain services closely linked to sport’ permit a Member State to limit the exemption only to individuals taking part in sport?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).

1

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of approved Tribal-State Compact.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes approval of the Tribal-State Compact between the State of Oklahoma and Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 2, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of the approved Tribal-State Compact for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Compact authorizes the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma to engage in certain Class III gaming activities, provides for certain geographical exclusivity, limits the number of gaming machines at existing racetracks, and prohibits non-tribal operation of certain machines and covered games.                 

Carl J. Artman, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. E7-5955 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Muhammad Nasir,

Plaintiff

 v.

Asfa Ahad Shah, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-01003

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ December 2, 2011 motion for an

order dismissing this action and awarding attorney fees pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) (doc.

22). 

As of the date of defendants’ motion, plaintiff had not complied with my

November 10, 2011 Order granting defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions. See

doc. 20. Plaintiff’s counsel reported that his failure to comply with his discovery

obligations was due to his daughter being diagnosed with a severe health condition.

See, doc. 24, PAGEID # 135. Since the motion for an order dismissing this case was filed,

plaintiff has provided additional documents and promised to provide other documents.

Doc. 26, Ex. A, PAGEID # 160 and following. Based on a joint motion of the parties, the

deadline for filing dispositive motions was extended. 

Defendants seek dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The

Sixth Circuit has identified four factors which should be considered prior to dismissing

Case: 2:10-cv-01003-MRA Doc #: 35 Filed: 01/25/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

a case under Rule 37: (1)whether the party's failure to cooperate in discovery is due to

willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the

dismissed party's failure to cooperate in discovery; (3) whether the dismissed party was

warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and, (4) whether less drastic

sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 

71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995)(citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d 1067,

1079 (6th Cir. 1990)). At this juncture, dismissal of the case based on plaintiff’s failure to

comply with his discovery obligations is not warranted. Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate

in discovery was not due to willfulness, bad faith or fault. Defendants have not shown

that they were prejudiced by the delay, particularly given the extension of the deadline

for filing dispositive motions. Finally, plaintiff was not previously warned that failure

to cooperate could lead to dismissal. 

Defendants’ December 2, 2011 motion for an order dismissing this action and

awarding attorney fees pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) (doc. 22) is DENIED. If defendants

have not received the discovery that was the subject of my November 10, 2011 Order

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, counsel for defendants is DIRECTED

to telephone my office (614.719.3370) to schedule a telephone status conference.

Although further sanctions are not warranted at this time, more drastic sanctions, up to

and including dismissal, will be imposed if plaintiff fails to cooperate with discovery in

the future.

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-01003-MRA Doc #: 35 Filed: 01/25/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 31.1

 Certification of Lamar Sinkfield, President, CEO of Silver
   Screen Studios, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as
  adopted pursuant to ss. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                           2002.)
I, Lamar Sinkfield, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Silver Screen Studios, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly
report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;
4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant
is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90
days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to
the registrant's auditors:
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation
of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrant's internal controls; and
6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: May 20, 2004
By:/s/ Lamar Sinkfield
Lamar Sinkfield, President, acting CEO and a acting Director