alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 of On Time Filings, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Suzanne Fischer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to On Time Filings, Inc., and will be retained by On Time Filings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Suzanne FischerSuzanne Fischer

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2011
#### Herman JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-265.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1978.

*838Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Jones was convicted of unlawfully obtaining property by means of a worthless check he knew to be worthless, contrary to Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). Jones’ sole point on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requested instruction that intent to defraud is an essential element of the crime proscribed by Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975).

This court’s recent decision in *Adams v. State,*356 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), considered the identical issue, and held that intent to defraud is not an essential element of the offense proscribed by Section 832.05 (3). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-427-CV

IN RE GAYLE E. COPPOCK	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court is treating as a petition for writ of mandamus, and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL  A:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ. 

DELIVERED:  January 4, 2008
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2008

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/26 6/30 7/3 27.00 23.00 22.00 17.00 66.00 23.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 7/3 7/7 7/10 28.00 24.00 23.00 70.50 4.50

7/10 7/14 7/17 34.00 24.00 23.00 65.50 15.50

7/17 7/21 7/24 28.00 24.00 23.00 64.00 11.00

7/24 7/28 7/31 22.00 24.00 23.00 19.00 71.00 17.00

7/31 8/4 8/7 30.00 26.00 24.00 73.00 7.00

8/7 8/11 8/14 35.00 26.00 24.00 80.00 5.00

8/14 8/18 8/21 35.00 26.00 24.00 75.00 10.00

8/21 8/25 8/28 32.00 26.00 24.00 19.00 69.00 32.00

8/28 9/2 9/4 30.00 26.00 24.00 77.00 3.00

9/4 9/8 9/11 25.00 26.00 24.00 81.00 -6.00

9/11 9/15 9/18 20.00 23.00 23.00 80.00 -14.00

9/18 9/22 9/25 20.00 23.00 23.00 19.00 76.00 9.00

991.00 948.00 117.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

7-DAY BILL 7/8 7/9 6.00 6.00 0.00

Matures 7/17

31-DAY BILL 8/14 8/15 40.00 40.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

13-DAY BILL 9/2 9/3 12.00 12.00 0.00

Matures 9/16

126-DAY BILL 5/14 5/15 0.00 32.00 -32.00

Matures 9/18

-32.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 7/7 7/10 7/15 8.00 8.00

20-Year TIPS ® 7/17 7/22 7/31 6.00

2-Year Note 7/21 7/23 7/31 31.00 1.00

5-Year Note 7/21 7/24 7/31 21.00 1.00 20.00 38.00

10-Year Note 7/30 8/6 8/15 17.00 2.00

30-Year Bond 7/30 8/7 8/15 11.00 2.00 43.50 -15.50

2-Year Note 8/25 8/27 9/2 31.00

5-year Note 8/25 8/28 9/2 21.00 22.00 30.00

10-Year Note® 9/8 9/11 9/15 12.00 1.00 14.50 -2.50

2-Year Note 9/22 9/24 9/30 31.00

5-year Note 9/22 9/25 9/30 21.00 19.10 32.90

210.00 119.10 90.90

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 175.90

R = Reopening
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31258]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Extension of Concession Contract

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 STAT. 969; 16 
U.S.C. 20 et seq.), notice is hereby given that the National Park 
Service intends to extend a concession contract. This extension is 
necessary to allow the continuation of public services during the 
completion of the planning for the park. The following concession 
contract will be extended for a period of one year through December 31, 
1998: LIBBEY MEMORIAL PHYSICAL MEDICINE CENTER, CC-HOSP004-88.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This concession contract will expire on or 
before December 31, 1997, unless extended. The National Park Service 
will not renew this contract for an extended period until planning can 
be conducted to determine the future direction for concession services 
at this park. The necessary planning process is expected to begin 
shortly and will affect the future of his concessions. The planning 
process is expected to take one year to complete. Until the planning 
process is completed, it will not be in the best interest of the 
National Park Service to enter into long-term concession contracts and 
permits. For these reasons, it is the intention of the National Park 
Service to extend the current contract for a period of one year, 
beginning on or before January 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Concessions Management, Midwest Region, George Frederick, 
National Park Service, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 or at 
telephone number 402-221-3612.

    Dated: November 21, 1997.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-31258 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided the U.S. Department of the Treasury $9 billion for the 

Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) to provide direct investments into Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) and Minority Depository Institution (MDI) banks, credit unions and holding companies. 

These investments are designed to support the efforts of community financial institutions to, among other things, 

provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority-owned businesses and consumers, especially in lowincome and financially underserved communities that struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis.

These mission-driven financial institutions specialize in delivering responsible capital, credit and financial services 

to underserved communities. The investments made by Treasury are expected to be used for a range of 

community investments, including loans to low-income and minority borrowers and underserved small business, 

the development and preservation of affordable housing, and investments in community development projects.

Emergency Capital Investment Program Fact Sheet

Massachusetts

 

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-capital-investment-program

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email ecip@treasury.gov for additional information

Treasury has awarded institutions headquartered within Massachusetts 

over $295 million in ECIP investment funds.

Institution Headquarters City Type Award Amount 

Leader Bancorp, Inc. Arlington MDI $ 122,500,000 

Workers Federal Credit Union Littleton CDFI $ 150,000,000 

Greylock Federal Credit Union Pittsfield CDFI $ 23,047,000.00

Note: Headquarters City indicates institution headquarters location only. Institution's lending activity may go beyond identified city.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEPlCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

MAR 2 5 2011 

Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

P. 0. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

L On March 2,201 1, the California Air Resources Board submitted revir;io71:s to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials snb:rnitted ~witl~ 

the following rule and found that it fulfills the completeness criteria in 40 CFM Part 5 1, 

Appendix V. 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming monthis \or \.rill 

review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act secli I I I [!I 1 1. 

APCDIAQMD 

South Coast 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed ho Cyn':. 1:ia GI. 

Allen at (415) 947-4120. 

Deborah Jordan 

Director, Air Division 

Rule # 

1315 

cc: Dr. Barry Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

........... Rule Title ....... 

Federal New Source Review Tracking 

System 1 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluation Section 

Stationary Source Division 
EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST 

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V 

Key: 

C = Complete 

I = Incomplete 

N/A = Not Applicable To Rule 

0 = Material Missing 

Submittal Date 

District Name 

Date Reviewed 

EPA Reviewer 

March 2,2011 

South Coast AQMD 

03/23/2011 

C.G. Allen 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1) 

I (dl) Copy of actual rulelplan X I I 

I (a) Submittal letter from Governorldesicmee 

(b) Evidence of adoption 

(c) StatelDistrict legal authority to adopt 

1 (d2) Rule changes indicated by underlinelcross-out I NIA I 

X 

X 

X 

I (f) Copy of public notice 

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements X 

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice 

(h) Public comments & agency response 

X 

X 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2) 

(a) Regulated pollutants identified 

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identified 

X 

X 

(c) Rulelplan emissions impact 

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration 

I (g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements I X I 

NIA 

N/A 

(e) Modeling support as appropriate 

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions 

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Notes: 

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C
I 

I 

r 

--_____ J::::;: ,, 

/-'' 

I-. ' 

Rer. r5 

;---

Bitler, c. and H. Icon, Corrosion •nd ita Preventioo 

To 'W•ters. Reinhold, Nev York. 1966. 

~--

1 

• I 

c 

..... 

I 

0 

(II 

01
#### Plank-Road Company *versus*Rineman.

■Where the hill of exceptions to evidence is not on the paper-hook, and it not appearing on the record whether the admission of evidence was right or wrong, the presumption is that the judgment of the Court, in admitting it, was right.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of *Allegheny county.*

This was a proceeding against the same Plank-Road Company.

Williams, for plaintiff in error.

*McOandless,*for defendant.

December 20,

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Black, C. J.

There is one point here not raised in the other cases. A witness testified as follows: *“*Ziegler promised to pay if bill was made out reasonable.” It is then parenthetically noted that objection was made by defendant, overruled, and exception sealed. But the bill of exceptions itself does not appear on the paper-book. Assuming this to be such an exception as we can take notice of, there are other difficulties. Who was Ziegler? What relation did he bear to the parties ? When or on what occasion did he make the declaration attributed to him ? How and to what extent did the evidence injure the plaintiffs in error ? On what ground was the objection put, in the Court below ? All these are questions to which there ought to be some show of an answer. As it is, we do not know whether the evidence was right or wrong, injurious or harmless, pertinent or irrelevant; nor whether the argument now made against it, is the same that was made at the trial, or a totally new one. The presumption is that *100the judgment is right; and this presumption has not been repelled by anything adduced to us.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2284 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2284

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that gain or loss 
  on the sale or exchange of certain coins or bullion is exempt from 
                              recognition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2021

  Mr. Mooney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that gain or loss 
  on the sale or exchange of certain coins or bullion is exempt from 
                              recognition.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Monetary Metals Tax Neutrality Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS FROM SALE OF CERTAIN 
              COINS OR BULLION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter O of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after part IV the following new 
part:

               ``PART V--SALE OF CERTAIN COINS OR BULLION

``Sec. 1071. Sale of certain coins or bullion.

``SEC. 1071. SALE OF CERTAIN COINS OR BULLION.

    ``No gain or loss shall be recognized on the sale or exchange of--
            ``(1) gold, silver, platinum, or palladium coins minted and 
        issued by the Secretary at any time, or
            ``(2) refined gold or silver bullion, coins, bars, rounds, 
        or ingots which are valued primarily based on their metal 
        content and not their form.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter O of 
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relating 
to part IV the following new item:

             ``Part V--Sale of Certain Coins or Bullion''.

    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales or exchanges after December 31, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
#### PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gabriel CORREA, Alicia Correa, Elkie Correa and Alicia Correa, (deceased infant), Raul Pastorini and U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6823

SUNDAY QUINCY USOH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; MENDOZA JADDOU; R. RODRIGUEZ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Sherri A. Lydon , District Judge. ( 2:22

- cv - 01470

- SAL )

Submitted : June 28, 2024 Decided: August 16, 2024

Before KING, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sunday Quincy Usoh , Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Hirst , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6823 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Sunday Quincy Usoh appeals the district court’s order a cce pting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his amended petition challenging the denial of his application for naturalization. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order, see Usoh v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , No. 2:22

- cv - 01470

- SAL (D.S.C. July 20, 2023), but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice as to the claims dismissed for lack of subject matte r jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see Ali v. Hogan , 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022); Moss v. Harwood , 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6823 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DAVID LAWRENCE JENSEN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30024

D.C. No. 9:15

- cr

- 00015

- DLC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

David Lawrence Jensen appeals from th e district court’s judgment and

challenges the 84

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

being a felon in possession of firearm s and ammunition , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 30024

§§ 922(g)(1)

, and 924 (a)(2), (d)

. We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

Jensen contends that the district court erred by imposing a four

- level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in

connection with a burglary. We review for clear error, see United States v.

Newhoff , 627 F.3d 1163, 1170 ( 9th Cir. 2010)

, and hold there is none. The record

reflects that a stolen gun was found in Jensen’s residence, a credit card was stolen

from the theft victim in the same incident, and an individual driving a car that fit

the description of Jensen’s car used the stolen credit card on the day on which the

victim reported the theft

. The district court did not clearly err in holding that this

evidence was sufficient , by a preponderance of the evidence, to establi sh that

Jensen took a firearm during the course of a burglary. See id. ( district court’s

inference that defendant stole a firearm was reasonable based on circumstantial

evidence, which “can prove a sentencing fact”).

AFFIRMED.
No. 72-6033.

No. 72-6227.

No. 72-6249.

No. 72-6269.

No. 72-6292.

#### Pedrosa *v.*Elrod, Sheriff, et al.; Hawkins *v.*Wyoming et al.; Muhammad *v.*United States; Crow *v.*Arizona et al.; and Turner *v.*McCarthy, Men's Colony Superintendent.

Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2008 Actual 556 569 (18) 551 (5) 367

Jan - Mar

2009 Actual 565 481 (14) 467 (98) 269

Apr - Jun

2009 Actual 278 343 (17) 327 49 318

Jul - Sep

2009 Actual 415 393 (20) 372 (43) 275

Oct - Dec

2009 Actual 340 260 (3) 258 (82) 194

Jan - Mar

2010 Actual 446 483 (12) 471 25 219

Apr - Jun

2010 Actual 263 344 (10) 334 71 290

Jul - Sep

2010 Actual 362 396 (14) 382 20 310

Oct - Dec

2010 Actual 326 363 (4) 359 33 343

Jan - Mar

2011 Actual 470 265 (20) 245 (225) 118

Apr - Jun

2011 Actual 149 190 (22) 167 19 137

Jul - Sep

2011 Actual 342 286 (23) 264 (79) 58

Oct - Dec

2011 Actual 284 310 2 312 28 86

Jan - Mar

2012 Actual 440 401 (3) 398 (42) 43

Apr - Jun

2012 Actual 129 172 5 177 48 91

Jul - Sep

2012 Actual 234 264 (36) 228 (6) 85

Oct - Dec

2012 Actual 291 297 1 298 7 93

Jan - Mar

2013 Actual 354 349 (8) 341 (14) 79

Apr - Jun

2013 Actual (73) (11) (7) (18) 56 135

Jul - Sep July 29, 2013 212 209 (37) 172 (40) 95

2013 Actual 205 197 (38) 159 (46) 88

Forecast Revisions (6) (12) (1) (13) (7) (7)

Oct - Dec July 29, 2013 230 235 (19) 215 (15) 80

2013 November 4, 2013 204 266 (10) 256 52 140

Forecast Revisions (26) 32 9 41 67 60

Jan - Mar

2014 November 4, 2013 356 265 (4) 261 (95) 45

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 14, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00782-CV 

2015 ACQUISITIONS 5, L.L.C., Appellant 

V. 

DISSOLUTION COMMITTEE FOR THE BOARD OF 

DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS TRUSTEES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-04952 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant informs 

the Court that the parties have settled their dispute. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

180782F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

2015 ACQUISITIONS 5, L.L.C., Appellant

No. 05-18-00782-CV V. 

DISSOLUTION COMMITTEE FOR THE 

BOARD OF DALLAS COUNTY 

SCHOOLS TRUSTEES, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-04952. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Francis and Fillmore participating. 

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

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee 

DISSOLUTION COMMITTEE FOR THE BOARD OF DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS 

TRUSTEES recover its costs of this appeal from appellant 2015 ACQUISITIONS 5, L.L.C. 

Judgment entered September 14, 2018.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Qu

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Bala

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2005 Actual 97 93 6 98 1 37

Jan - Mar

2006 Actual 173 158 (14) 144 (28) 8

Apr - Jun

2006 Actual (137) (92) (7) (99) 38 46

Jul - Sep

2006 Actual 19 45 (19) 26 6 52

Oct - Dec

2006 Actual 70 42 6 48 (21) 31

Jan - Mar

2007 Actual 159 126 9 134 (25) 6

Apr - Jun April 30, 2007 (162) (145) 6 (138) 24 30

2007 Actual (153) (139) 5 (133) 19 25

Memo: Forecast Revision 10 6 (1) 5 (5) (5)

Jul - Sep April 30, 2007 18 43 (10) 33 15 45

2007 July 30, 2007 22 73 (16) 57 35 60

Memo: Forecast Revision 5 31 (6) 24 20 15

Oct - Dec

2007 July 30, 2007 92 74 (12) 62 (30) 30

Notes: All data reported on a cash basis

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing