alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.1

Computation of Earnings Per Share



The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, included
in this report as Exhibit 13.3.



Earnings Per
Share



Net Income /

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  | Three months ended June 30,
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                                    |  | 2003                       
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 1,538,443                  
|Net Income                          |  | 690,729                    
|Per Share Amount                    |  | .45                        



|                                    |  | Six months ended June 30,
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                                    |  | 2003                     
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 1,538,443                
|Net Income                          |  | 1,310,200                
|Per Share Amount                    |  | .85                      



No common stock equivalents exist.
⁄±Æ ÀÚÕÚ 1⁄2· ̈·¶a2­Ù °aÆ3ø2a2 ̈ Æa­·oa2 ̈­Ù ø2o 1⁄2aÆ ̈ø·2 2±2Û1⁄2· ̈·¶a2 ÀÚÕÚ 

⁄±Æ ø¥¥ ± ̈ ̧aÆ­Ù  ̈ ̧·­ o±1⁄2 ́3a2 ̈ Æa°Æa­a2 ̈­ ø Æa1⁄2±12· ̈·±2 ±o ±©2aÆ­ ̧·°Ú⁄±Æ ø¥¥  ̧±¥oaÆ­Ù o±Æ ø¥¥ ±°aÆø ̈·±2­ ± ̈ ̧aÆ  ̈ ̧ø2 ø­ ø 3±oa¥ ø·Æ1⁄2Æøo ̈  ́2oaÆ ­a1⁄2Ú ÌÌÍ ±o – ́æÚ ‘Ú ÔÔÓÛÁÎÙ øoo· ̈·±2ø¥ ­øoa ̈ß ø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈ß oÆ±3 ⁄flfl ø2o a1⁄2±2±3·1⁄2 ø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈ß oÆ±3 ‹—Ã 3øß æa ÆaØ ́·ÆaoÚ

›¤ŒÃ×⁄×›flÃ¤ ÿ—‘‹¤ŒÊÀflÕ ›¤ŒÃ×⁄×›flÃ¤ “À”fi¤ŒÊ×ÕÕÀ¤‹Ê ¤»–×Œ¤ÕÊ

⁄aoaÆø¥ flTM·ø ̈·±2flo3·2·­ ̈Æø ̈·±2

ã ⁄¥ß æa¥±© Ïðð oaa ̈ãã ’aa° ß± ́Æ ÀflÕ ©· ̈ ̧·2 TM·­ ́ø¥ 

¥·2a ±o ­·1 ̧ ̈

ã ’aa° ø©øß oÆ±3 a3aÆ1a21⁄2ß 

Æa­°±2oaÆã aTMa2 ̈­ ±Æ 1Æ± ́°­ ±o °a±°¥a ã ±o oÆ ́1­ ±Æ ø¥1⁄2± ̧±¥ ã

1⁄2±2 ̈Æ±¥ ø2o ø·Æ°±Æ ̈ ø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈·a­

”·1⁄2 ̧øa¥ ŸøÆ1⁄2·ø

⁄flÌ”ÌŒÏ»“ÿ

ðÌÒðÈÒÓðÔÍ ðÌÒðÈÒÓðÔÁ
Exhibit 32

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   accompanying   Annual  Report  on  Command  Security
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Barry I. Regenstein,  Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer 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, to the
best of 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: June 29, 2005

By:  /s/ Barry I. Regenstein
     --------------------
     Barry I. Regenstein
     Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Joseph P. KOEHNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 7, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## i .. ·**~·** ' 

# Ce•tti __

# ¢'~tJ:$ .. 

# ::1;:**---_B·'G~lk'c/2** 

# .fti/._**'e£l~:-~&zi<1j"** ':

# -.~-,Afu~l7!g:rl-a 0/ 

# i cJ.

# =M~·J:**C,~V5[,_** .. 

# Ai_f!}.lhYv.i:
.. 

# ka:s 

# .:tis
-**_l-<~~~** _-.a.:; 

# i 

# :i. 77 ____ - 1·1

1 ·•I.**·~·** ' '

,. •' d.. •**.·~** ••.•



### .. ··.•



### .. 

# m4Ta•'N 

# :1R
....**·~** f • ,_. • • ••• • 

# :: , . .

# ~**.l3.''{1J~** J3e<tNl

# fG;tco~~£ 

# -':J:J}.J.**~dv>fr ~.** **~-** 

# · A leo ,'AJ 

# i:. C'€?u,rJ . 

# .SJ./**~- .111!/?~·t·l.** **!"r~l.-~'!-~1:.:** 

# . : .. ··. ··

f:i{l ,· N 

# -f ;,·**hLtr~-r.~~~~-~·tlild:t, B),'/4~** **s!i~Y·~ ·i:&~~fA~.i;_.**  

# . ..•. ,q 

# 1'1'-. t

# J,·~f.)**._Jr.:~;** :: 

# 6\:·
.

# :::t~.~-4**~·'d.·.** CJ 

# cJcV1

# -~ .. 

# !:, /t:r· . ... 

# .-m ..**f.f.TM~.** ... ._.

# ~ 

# k'J**-~.'/,£··** ./IN/.
.

# .-:~bt.;S·:p~o'~-Si:·:'iL/i;2**·~·d·~<** .. t<L5 

# ,o.rdt,c 

# · ·1**b~'s··** ·.···.ac;&.rti::

# ·dt;;.:'ta/!~I)·~,IV**i:.~·Uvw** 

# £t--·L· ·· __**.d;~··:··.·~f~·** 

# ...**:/j:.·~-~:·,i,_,.:** 

# ·: ·.,- .... ·**·~.:**

. . . 

# .. . , .. I • • • ' :0.· .....**~-** . - ••·•· '·**-~** •"'' -·· - - ... • .,,**~** ·. •**~** f( "" ,: ••**~.** }: ..**~....** ,. .. ;. . 

### •.. ; 

## :'
. r
-:, .. ':".

. .. . . . 

## - . ·- ..**·~** . .. 

### -. 

## .. _ _. . 

# - ..... ". :.:::·- ..... . . • ! • j**-~** • ': •• • • "

...**~** ' ,_ 

### ....... - 

### --··· ; .... ,.,. ...... 

## .. ,... . .,. 

### .... 

## ..

· .. -·- .·

# . r-, .

. 

## . :-' . . 

## . ..... ' 

# :: :,:

. \ ..**~** 

# .

· 

### ..... .; .. ·.·

,**~** .. ,''J<, ,._: '·· )- , I. '•. ' .

. ..**~** .. : 

# ..... ':. 

# .

I

.... , .;· 

### ._ .• <

• .. . . . ' • .. . • • • .... " .-- •. • . ·. • • ' . ' •**~** •**-~** .. , .. -' . . • .**~** '· ·-- ..**~** .• _t • • • ' • . • • ' . • . ' ''



## ---

# .~**~.,-=** ::( · ·'

# 1:2~·'f'l~_rJ ,

# ~~**::,J,_·::~** .

# .,.S.9fld:?e.~.r·;:::u}J,d::..>,··~**tr:~:·f'li.ttL":t~r.Ls·~** 

# /**.~·-** 

# · .. :

.. , .. : ,,. ·

# ~~-f-.l'7il6'f .

# iJ~i:L.:t;**if~o'/tlr,"_t,lf·'·-JjJ•S:d.** 

# ..J.-{1: elf_ •.... ·· .....

. . .

# f!<JnAJ·J'~**~0>_** 

# ·_I!Arl**R·¥!1~** 

# ..**~;;:£: 7e~** **~#etJ,C!-t~~·(;;J>il"si'(·.~·.?;J** 

# .. ·.

. ,. . , ·I''
. .. . ., •: "., . ' 

### ..... . .. 

# , . : ._ 

### ... ··.- . • ••.**·~·** l • . ·.··

' . · 

## .. " ' 

## . . . 

## . :-**~'.**



### ... . .. ·. 

# ····· 

# . ' • _, •• -4 t

., ., ..... ·

l

. I

/



# . ·I

. i i •



# . .

.... L**·~·:** 

# ..

j• •;



## . ' ' 

# .**~\** ..·-. ,l
October 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Dominion Power and Duke Energy

Attendees :

Lorie Schmidt, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR Laura Vaught, EPA/ OA/OCIR/OIR/SL Ann Loomis, Dominion Tom Lawler, Lawler Strategies Bill Tyndall, Duke Energy

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the comment s submitted by Dominion Power and Duke Energy on the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standa rds (MATS), specifically concerning: the PM limit, start ups and shut downs, and a limited use category for oil-fired units.
Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
 Dated: August 20, 2010
    /s/ Paul D. TobiasPaul D. TobiasChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
#### Donald McCLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Lonnie Ray NAPIER, Appellee.

No. 70-630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            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 First Wilkow Venture (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marc R. Wilkow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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/ Marc R. Wilkow
----------------------
Marc R. Wilkow
General Partner
DATED: August 12, 2005


                            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 First Wilkow Venture (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter Boelke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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/ Peter Boelke
-------------------------------------------
Peter Boelke
Chief Financial Officer, M & J Wilkow, Ltd.
DATED: August 12, 2005




                                       12
#### Gail Marie Dedman, wife of Michael Lane ROUSSEL v. Michael Lane ROUSSEL.

No. 60187.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1977.

In re: Gail Marie Dedman, wife of Michael Lane Roussel applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 346 So.2d 860.

Writ denied. We agree with the court of appeal that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.

DIXON, J., dissents from the denial.

CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J.,

concurs in the writ denial. On the basis of the fact found by the court of appeal, there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
EXHIBIT 11.1

Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per
Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2006 and 2005, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                                  |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended September 30,
|                                    |  | 2006                             |           | 2005
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                  | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                                | 591,693   |      | $ | 613,555  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                                | 0.39      |      | $ | 0.40     



|                                    |  |                                 |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Nine months ended September 30,
|                                    |  | 2006                            |           | 2005
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                 | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                               | 1,741,169 |      | $ | 1,670,067
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                               | 1.14      |      | $ | 1.09     

No common stock equivalents exist.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00234-CR

No. 10-23-00235-CR

JAMES GAMBRELL, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 30096 & 30238

R E I N S T A T E M E N T A N D B R I E F I N G ORDER A N D 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

These appeals were abated and remanded so the trial court could determine why 

briefs had not been filed in these cases and whether Appellant still desires to proceed 

with these appeals. The trial court held a hearing and appointed appellate counsel. The 

supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record of that hearing have been 

filed in this Court.
Gambrell v. State Page 2

Accordingly, we REINSTATE these appeals.

The record includes an order dismissing trial court cause number 30096, our cause 

number 10-23-00234-CR. In criminal cases, a party may appeal only from a judgment of 

conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). When this Court lacks jurisdiction, we have no power to act, and we must 

dismiss the attempted appeal. See State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009). Accordingly, we dismiss appellate cause number 10-23-00234-CR for lack of 

jurisdiction.

Appellant's appointed counsel and counsel for the State filed an "Agreed Motion 

to Transfer Briefs." They assert that Appellant's briefs and the State's briefs were filed in 

this Court, but erroneously filed in cause numbers 10-23-00176-CR and 10-23-00181-CR. 

See Gambrell v. State, 10-23-00176-CR & 10-23-00181-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1591 (Tex. 

App.—Waco March 4, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). They 

request this Court to transfer the briefs from those causes to cause numbers 10-23-00234-

CR and 10-23-00235-CR.

Inasmuch as cause number 10-23-00234-CR has been dismissed, we cannot transfer 

briefs into that appeal. Furthermore, Appellant's briefs were filed pro se, and he is now 

represented by counsel. He is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Ex parte Taylor, 
Gambrell v. State Page 3

36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (per curiam). Accordingly, we DENY the

Agreed Motion to Transfer Briefs.

The briefing schedule is reset. Appellant's brief in 10-23-00235-CR is due 30 days 

from the date of this opinion and order. The State's brief is due 30 days after Appellant's 

brief is filed.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Appeals reinstated

Appeal dismissed

Opinion and order issued and filed March 7, 2024

Do not publish

[RWR]

[CR25]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Peabody Energy Corporation, ) 

a public company, ) Docket No. 9391 

) 

and ) 

) 

Arch Coal, Inc., ) 

a public company, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.2l(b), the initial scheduling conference will be 

held on July I 0, 2020 at 3 :00 p.m. Due to ongoing public health concerns related to 

COVID-19, the conference will be conducted telephonically and the conference will not 

be open to the public. See 16 C.F.R. § 3.21 (g) ("Prehearing conferences shall be public 

unless the Administrative Law Judge determines in his or her discretion that the 

conference ( or any part thereof) shall be closed to the public."). This is not an 

evidentiary hearing. The proceedings will be steno graphically recorded. 

The parties are directed to confer in advance of the scheduling conference and to 

comply with Commission Rule 3.2l(a) and (b). 

ORDERED: 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: July 7, 2020 

D. Michael Chappell
Bibliography

King, C. J. (1980). Separation processes. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780070346123

Hines, A. L., & Maddox, R. N. (1985). Mass transfer: Fundamentals and applications. Englewood Cliffs, 

N.J: Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 9780135596098

Toole-O'Neil, B., & Ohio. (1998). Dry scrubbing technologies for flue gas desulfurization. Boston: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers. ISBN: 9780792383468

Kitto, J. B., Stultz, S. C., & Babcock & Wilcox Company. (2005). Steam, its generation and use. 

Barberton, OH: Babcock & Wilcox. ISBN: 9780963457011

Wang, L. K., Pereira, N. C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2010). Air pollution control engineering. Totowa, N.J: Humana 

Press. 9781617373978 

Stoft, S. (2002). Power economics: Designing markets for electricity. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. ISBN: 

9780471150404

Vatavuk, W. M. (1990). Estimating costs of air pollution control. Chelsea, Mich: Lewis Publishers. ISBN: 

9780873711425

McKenna, J. D. (2008). Fine particle (2.5 microns) emissions: Regulations, measurement, and control. 

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 9780471709633

2010 Global Construction Cost and Reference Yearbook ISBN 0-9725845-3-6

Compass International Consultants, Inc., 2010
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James N. ORR.

No. 61138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: James N. Orr applying for writ of mandamus and remedial writs (Parish of Rapides).

Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered on whether right of appeal was intelligently waived.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., are of the opinion the writ should be denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of KPMG LLP**

**The Board of DirectorsSauer-Danfoss Inc.:**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements No. 33-53927 and No. 333-93745 onForm S-8 of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of our reports dated March 10,2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sauer-Danfoss Inc.and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensiveincome and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-Kof Sauer-Danfoss Inc.

As described innote 13 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2003 the Companychanged its method of accounting for stock compensation expense.

/s/ KPMG LLPDes Moines, Iowa

March 10, 2006

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank NAVARRE.

No. 54139.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 1974.

*211Gerald P. Theriot, Houma, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., Alexander L. Doyle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

Frank Navarre was tried under a bill of information charging him with simple burglary. R.S. 14:62. He was convicted after a trial by jury and sentenced to serve nine years imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant appeals, relying on a single perfected bill of exceptions.

This bill was reserved when the trial judge denied a motion to recuse himself. The motion was grounded on alleged prejudice stemming from the fact that the judge had presided over a prior trial where the defendant had been found guilty.

The mere fact that a judge has presided over a prior criminal proceeding involving the defendant does not establish that he had developed bias or prejudice to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial. This interest must be of a substantial nature to constitute grounds for disqualification. See Official Revision Comment to article 671(1) C.Cr.P.; State v. Austin, 258 La. 273, 246 So.2d 12 (1971). Defendant moved for a new trial grounded on the denial of the above motion. He failed to allege, however, one instance of bias or lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in conducting the trial. This bill is without merit.

We note that the record indicates that the defendant was sentenced without being given or having waived the twenty-four hour delay provided in article 873 C.Cr.P.

For the reasons assigned the conviction is affirmed, and the sentence is set aside. The case is remanded for sentencing in accordance with law.
#### Succession of Pierre Tanner TATUM.

No. 60327.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Sion Smith Tatum, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 347 So.2d 79.

Writ refused. No error of law.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodicreport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

Date:                    February 7, 2008

 
|   | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----