alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROT

.ECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 Submitted Electronically Montague Dixon Chair, LDPHTask Force Senior Regulatory Product Manager Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. P.O

.Box18300 Greensboro, NC 27419

JAN

**~**3 2014 Subject: Statusoffish early life stagedata required for LDPH chemicals DearMr. Dixon,

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION This letter servesasnotice tothe Light Dependant Peroxidizing Herbicide (LDPH) Task Force that the fish early life stage

.(ELS) toxicity data requirement has been satisfied. The fish ELS data submitted bythe Task Forceon pyraflufen

-ethyl, oxadiazon, and oxyfluorfen
aresufficient

to satisfy the fish ELS data need forallLDPHactive ingredients. The following table outlines the active ingredients and corresponding DataCall-in numbers for which the fish ELS toxicity data requirement (Guideline 850.1400)

is nowsatisfied. Registrants responsible for each DCI should be awarethat this letter does not satisfy anydata requirements other than 850.1400 fish ELS toxicity. Table
1.Datacall-ins forwhich 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity data aresatisfied LDPH Active Ineredient

DC! Number Carfentrazone-ethyl GDCI-128712-26285 Flufenpyr-ethyl GDCI-108853-26316 Flumiclorac-pentyl GDCI-128724-26284 Flumioxazin GDCI-129034-26286 Fluthiacet-methyl GDCI-108803-26289 Lactofen GDCI-128888-26320 Oxadiazon GDCI-109001-24733 Oxyfluorfen GDCI-111601-17901 Pyraflufen-ethyl GDCI-030090-26294 Sodium acifluorfen GDCI-114402-20870 Sodium Salt of Fomesafen GDCI-123802-26290I Sulfentrazone GDCI-129081-26293 The LDPH Task Force
is encouraged

to continue working with the Agency
to provide raw data or any additional information needed to complete the analysis of the fish ELS toxicity data in order to determine
an appropriate toxicity adjustment factor on chronic fish toxicity. The LDPH task force is composed
of the technical registrants Syngenta, Valent, BASF, Bayer, Dow, K-1 Chemical, FMC, Nichino, who all agreed to share the costs of conducting the studies to satisfy the fish ELS data requirement. UPI and Makhteshim Agan(MANA) have agreed to pay for use of the data. If you have any questions, please contact Jose Gayoso, Chemical Review Manager, Pesticide Reevaluation Division,

at (703) 347-8652
or gayoso.jose@epa.gov. Sincerely, **~oJI~hid** Risk Management and Implementation Branch
II Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)
#### Robert H. Leys, *Respondent, v.*The East River Ferry Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
No. 58630.

protest 227465-K (New York).

#### United Cutlery & Hardware Products Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

[Wyle Laboratories Letterhead]


October 29, 1999


KRUG International Corp.
900 Circle 75 Parkway
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30339

RE: STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT/EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

Gentlemen:

This letter concerns that certain Stock Purchase Agreement between Wyle
Laboratories, Inc. and KRUG International Corp. ("KRUG"), dated September 24,
1999 (the "Purchase Agreement"), and that certain Exchange Agreement between
LTS Holdings, Inc. and KRUG, dated September 24, 1999 (the "Exchange
Agreement").

In accordance with our telephone conversation earlier today, this will confirm
that the parties have agreed by mutual consent to extend the time for the
Closing to occur, as provided under Section 3.1 of the Purchase Agreement, and
as provided under Section 4.1 of the Exchange Agreement, until November 30,
1999.

Management of Wyle will keep KRUG representatives informed on a weekly basis
of the status of and progress toward completing the financing and other
transactions necessary to consummate the closing.

Except as specifically modified and amended, the other terms and conditions of
the Purchase Agreement and the Exchange Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

WYLE LABORATORIES, INC.                      KRUG INTERNATIONAL CORP.

By: /s/ C.D. Yiakas                        By: /s/ Robert M. Thornton, Jr.
    --------------------------                 ---------------------------
    C.D. Yiakas, President                     Robert M. Thornton, Jr.
                                               Chief Executive Officer


LTS HOLDINGS, INC.

By: /s/ C.D. Yiakas
    --------------------------
    C.D. Yiakas, President


     Wyle Laboratories, Inc. 128 Maryland Street, El Segundo, CA 90245-4100
                    Tel: (740) 322-1763 Fax: (310) 640-7662
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 Bainbridge Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Tracy A. Dixon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna H. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, 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 our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Tracy A. Dixon                   
| |  | Tracy A. Dixon                       
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 13, 2005                         
| | 
| |  | /s/ Donna H. Kelley                  
| |  | Donna H. Kelley                      
| |  | Chief Financial Officer              
| |  | May 13, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS 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 Monitronics International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael R. Meyers, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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

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



By:

/s/ Michael R. MeyersMichael R. Meyers Chief Financial Officer and Vice President (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date: November 10, 2005
No. 54176.

#### T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 146563-K, 146566-K, and 146567-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.2



SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph T. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



By:

/s/ Joseph T. MorrisJoseph T. MorrisChief Financial Officer




February 14, 2006
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 907 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the definition of 

franchise fee, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. BONAMICI, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. AUCHINCLOSS, 

Ms. LEE of California, Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. TRONE, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and 

Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the 

definition of franchise fee, 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 ‘‘Protecting Community 

5 Television Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF FRANCHISE FEE. 

7 Section 622(g)(1) of the Communications Act of 

8 1934 (47 U.S.C. 542(g)(1)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 907 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘includes’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘means’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘other monetary’’ before ‘‘as4 sessment’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EDWARD A. GARDNER, Sergeant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

9 USCMA 206, 25 CMR 468

No. 11,219

Decided April 18, 1958

*207
      *Commander H. H. Brandenburg,*USN, and *Commander Charles Timblin,*USN, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Craig McKee,*USN, and *Commander Louis L. Milano,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused, in spite of his plea to the contrary, was found guilty by general court-martial of the larceny of foodstuffs which were the property of the United States, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. The staff legal officer, in a very brief review, outlined the evidence which had been presented at trial. At the completion of this resume, there is found the following statement:

> “. . . On the above evidence the accused was found guilty of theft. The court had jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the accused.”

The review concluded with the recommendation that the sentence of the court be approved.

In United States v Withrow, 8 USCMA 728, 25 CMR 232, and United States v Flemings, 8 USCMA 729, 25 CMR 233, we said that a staff legal officer in the post-trial review must evaluate the adequacy and weight to be given the evidence adduced at trial. See also paragraph 856, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951. Here, the review “merely summarized, it did not advise.” United States v Withrow, supra. This was error.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to the convening authority for further proceedings pursuant to Articles 61 and 64 of the Code, supra, 10 USC §§ 861 and 864.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 9 95 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 056 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

DONNA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., CASE NO. C2-11-352

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Defendants. MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed May 17, 2011, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this action.

Date: May 17, 2011 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00352-EAS-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 05/17/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1

MSP = a (watts)^b, watts = 50% load Total LRU01: MVLF, 1ph, 50 KVA

1 Price ~ a x Loss ^ b2 blue = DOE3 red = pads 

dashed red = poles

4 The rate of increase 

in price with reduced losses in GREATER than that seen by the DOE calculations

EL6 EL5 EL4 EL3 

MVLF, 1ph , 50 KVA : 

unit 

watts DOE 

0.995 

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 

o N 

watts 232 

ASS avg 

0.5% 

11 .4% 

25.7% 

44.4% 

69.6% 

105.4% 

-.. o \. or. 

'. ". '. '. '. 

[t..verage of MSP 

.... 0"'" ;00 

'. ". 

'. 
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2

MSP = a (watts)^b, watts = 50% load Total LRU01: MVLF, 1ph, 50 KVA

1 Price ~ a x Loss ^ b2 blue = DOE3 red = pads 

dashed red = poles

4 The rate of increase 

in price with reduced losses in GREATER than that seen by the DOE calculations

5 The Pad has the 

same trend but the Pole is dramatically different. Poles represent more than 1/3 of the market. The same trend should NOT be used for both products.

EL6 EL5 EL4 EL3 

MVLF, 1ph , 50 KVA : 

unit 

watts DOE 

0.995 

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 

watts 232 

ASS avg 

0.5% 

11 .4% 

25.7% 

44.4% 

69.6% 

105.4% 

' .. 

. 

'. ". " '. '. 

I Average of M SP 

..... "" . 

... .... 

-

'. ". 

.. 

'. '. '.
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

Tammie F. Bradfield, :

 Plaintiff, :

 v. : Case No. 2:11-cv-12

Exel, : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

 Defendant. : 

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That pursuant to the July 8, 2011 Order,

the Court DISMISSED THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), for failure to show good cause why service was not

made. 

Date: July 8, 2011 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00012-ALM-TPK Doc #: 12 Filed: 07/08/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00603-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-CI-02683

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby 

GRANTED. The appellant's brief is due on or before November 28, 2022.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2022

NO. 03

- 20

- 00569

- CV

Ashley Szymonek and Paul Szymonek , Appellant s

v.

Arturo Guzman and The Law Office of Art Guzman , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT CO U RT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgme nt signed by the tr i a l court on November 3, 2020

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

ap pellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Johnson *v.*Troup County Rural Electrification Corporation.

No. 11773.

June 18, 1937.

Jenkins, Justice.

While a fa'st bill of exceptions will lie, under the Code, § 6-903, “in all cases granting or refusing applications for injunction,” an order dissolving, vacating, or modifying a temporary restraining order “is not reviewable by a ‘fast’ writ of error. . . As such an order is not a final adjudication of the case, a writ of error sued out to review the same is premature and must be dismissed.” *Stubbs*v. *McConnell,*119 *Ga.*21 (45 S. E. 710)*; Bradfield*v. *Abercrombie,*151 *Ga.*401 (107 S. E. 45); *Wright*v. *Thompson,*147 *Ga.*500 (94 S. E. 767); *Edwards*v. *Davis,*173 *Ga.*813 (161 S. E. 607); *Williamson*v. *Allen,*169 *Ga.*537 (150 S. E. 907); *Bradley*v. *Lithonia*& *Arabia Mountain R. Co.,*143 *Ga.*274 (2) (84 S. E. 590); *James*v. *Wilkerson,*164 *Ga.*149 (138 S. E. 71). These rules are applicable even though the order of dissolution or modification at the interlocutory hearing is “passed after submission of evidence.” *Wofford Oil Co.*v. *Nashville,*177 *Ga.*460 (170 S. E. 369). They a're especially applicable where, as in this case, the petition seeks not only an injunction but damages for a previous destruction of property, and the question of damages remains undetermined. Accordingly, as is urged by the defendant in error, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ of error either as a fast or ordinary bill of exceptions, where the judge, after granting a rule nisi and temporary order restraining the defendant from “removing, destroying, cutting, and sawing any trees, vines, or other growths” from the described land of the plaintiff, or from “trespassing on said property, or from erecting any poles or electrical lines or other electrical apparatus upon said property,” entered a subsequent order at the hearing on the rule nisi, merely providing that “the above-entitled cause coming on to be heard and after consideration of evidence submitted therein, it is ordered that the temporary restraining order heretofore granted plaintiff be and the same is hereby dissolved; provided, however, that said prior order is hereby continued in force so far as the cutting of trees on plaintiff’s lands is concerned,” and where the plaintiff, within the twenty days provided by the Code, § 6-903, tendered a fast bill of exceptions to such last order.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*528*Wyail ■& Morgan,*for plaintiff. *J. R. Terrell Jr.,*for defendant.
EXECUTION COPY**AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     **WHEREAS**, United America Indemnity Group, Inc. (the “Company”) is party to an executiveemployment agreement dated as of February 15, 2006 (the “Agreement”) with Joseph Morris (the“Executive”);     **WHEREAS**, Section 5.03 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended pursuant toa written instrument signed by the Company and the Executive; and     **WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive desire that scrivener’s errors in Section 1.03.4 becorrected; and     **WHEREAS**, the actions contemplated herein on behalf of the Company have been duly and validlyauthorized by all necessary action and no other proceedings on the part of the Company arenecessary to consummate the actions contemplated herein.     **NOW THEREFORE**, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:     1. All references to “April 1” in Section 1.03.4 shall be replaced with “February 15.”     2. In all other respects the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.     **INTENDED TO BE LEGALLY BOUND**, the signatories hereto have caused this amendment to be executedas of the February 15, 2006.                      **UNITED AMERICA INDEMNITY GROUP, INC.** **EXECUTIVE**                        By: /s/ Kevin Tate   By: /s/ Joseph Morris             Name: Kevin Tate   Name: Joseph Morris  Title: Sr. VP and Chief Financial Officer
# CA2007144EN.01000701.xml

| 29.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 144/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 144/7

---

RESERVE LISTS
   (1)

RESERVE LISTS

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/38/05

OPEN COMPETITION

LINGUISTIC ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

LINGUISTIC ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

HAVING ENGLISH AS THEIR MAIN LANGUAGE

HAVING ENGLISH AS THEIR MAIN LANGUAGE

IN THE FIELD OF TRANSLATION

IN THE FIELD OF TRANSLATION

(2007/C 144 A/02)

Merit Group 1

| DAVIES | GREGORY |
| --- | --- |
| KAYE | PAUL |
| NOONAN | GERARD |
| SHREEVES | ROSAMUND |
| WARD | MARTIN |
| WAYWELL | PHILIP |

DAVIES

GREGORY

KAYE

PAUL

NOONAN

GERARD

SHREEVES

ROSAMUND

WARD

MARTIN

WAYWELL

PHILIP

Merit Group 2

| DUCKETT | CHRISTY |
| --- | --- |
| EVERETT | THOMAS |
| HARRISON | GUY D M |
| MARCUS | DANIEL |
| O'BRIEN | MARTIN |
| SALIBA | SUSAN |
| TOFT | CONRAD |
| WELCH | TIMOTHY CHARLES |
| WILKINSON | PETER |
| ZUBECKIS | ARNOLDS |

DUCKETT

CHRISTY

EVERETT

THOMAS

HARRISON

GUY D M

MARCUS

DANIEL

O'BRIEN

MARTIN

SALIBA

SUSAN

TOFT

CONRAD

WELCH

TIMOTHY CHARLES

WILKINSON

PETER

ZUBECKIS

ARNOLDS

The reserve lists will be valid until 31 December 2008 and may be extended.

31 December 2008

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---