alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IT QUALIRED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                              44
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                        24
<INVENTORY>                                      1,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,329
<PP&E>                                          14,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,395
<BONDS>                                          4,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,347
<SALES>                                          7,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,255
<CGS>                                            5,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    756
<INCOME-TAX>                                       302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       454
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Georgia-Pacific Group EPS - Primary 1.81
The Timber Company EPS - Primary 1.67
<F2> Georgia-Pacific Group EPS - Primary Diluted 1.76
The Timber Company EPS - Diluted 1.66
</FN>


</TABLE>
# June 2020
263 La. 993

#### Benedict DAVID v. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 53051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Benedict David applying for certi-orari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville. 268 So.2d 155.

Not considered. The application was not timely filed. See Art. 7, Sect. 11, La.Const.
#### Langridge et al. vs. Cobbs, Ex.

Suit by petition and summons on an obligation for a specified sum of money, with interest at ten per cent., from a day anterior to its date: *Held,*that the breach in the petition, being in the words of tbe statute, is sufficient — that the court know of no reason why the bond will notsustain the action — do not see how the bond is usurious; and if so, that objection is not presented by the demurrer, and could not be,

*Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court.*

Hon. Mark *W.*Alexander, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph, for appellant.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas Farrar, for the use of Samuel F. Ilollowaj, brought suit, by petition and summons, against Nancy C. Langridge and Thomas II. Alexander, on a bond for twelve hundred dollars, dated the 26th of April, 1858, “bearing ten per cent, interest from the 25th of day of December, 1857.”

The defendants demurred to the petition, because the breach was not large enough, and because petition and summons cannot be sustained on the bond for its being “an obligation to pay a specified sum of money, and interest at ten per cent., from a day anterior to its date.” The court overruled the demurrer, judgment was rendered, and defendants appealed.

The breach is in the words of the statute, and covers principal and interest. *Cail vs.*Brookfield, 4 *Ark.,*554.

No reason is given why the bond will not sustain the action : we know of none.

It is suggested for the appellants that the bond is usurious. *550We do not see bow ; and if so, that objection is not presented by the demurrer and could not be. *Howell vs. Vansant,*2 *Eng.*146; *Jennings vs. Willamowicz, ib.*277; *Pilsbury vs. McNally,*22 *Ark.*409.

Farrar having died during the litigation, the suit was revived in the name of Cobbs, his executor.

Judgment affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**454 CA 15-01237**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

----------------------------------------------- BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND CRANE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

K&L GATES LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL J. ROSS, OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BAR, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, BUFFALO (DENNIS P. HARLOW OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered June 5, 2015. The order denied the motion of defendant Crane Co. for a stay.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: July 8, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Charles SALEM, Relator, v. Honorable Harold R. VANN, one of the Judges of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-303.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 1, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-31164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KELLEY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12-CR-194

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant raises no issue for the appeal except that the judge’s 

statement, about knowing Ben Bagert for many years, was grounds for 

questioning the judge’s impartiality as reason for his disqualification. Bagert 

was a victim of Williams' offense who testified at sentencing about the conduct 

of the defendant to which she had pleaded guilty.

There is here no impairment of a judge by preventing his ability to rule 

or decide fully free of personal partiality.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-31164 Document: 00512497952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
No. 12-31164

If appellant thought there could be a basis for any concern, she could 

have sought to inquire at the sentencing or thereafter even through motions to 

substitute counsel, to obtain bail pending appeal, and even to extend selfreporting, all filed to the same sentencing judge and unaccompanied by any 

motion to recuse or inquire further into the acquaintanceship disclosed at 

sentencing. With this record we must affirm.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-31164 Document: 00512497952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
[No. 338-3.

Division Three.

December 27, 1971.]

#### D. L. McDonald *et al., Respondents,*v. Jesse J. Burdette, *Appellant.*
#### The J. *&*M. Haffen Brewing Company, Respondent, *v.*Sol. Cohen, as a Marshal, Etc., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December, 1912.)

Chattel mortgages — execution of — description of chattels.

Under a chattel mortgage covering, by printed words, “ all the * * * glassware and other goods mentioned in the schedules hereunto annexed,” glassware not mentioned in the schedule does not pass though on the premises at the execution of the mortgage..

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of the Bronx, second district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Robert Spear (Wells & Snedelter, of counsel), for appellant.

Max Bendit (Henry II. Davis, of counsel), for respondent.

*367Lehman, J.

The defendant, a city marshal, levied on property in the possession of certain judgment debtors. The plaintiff claims that it was entitled to this property under a chattel mortgage made to it by the judgment debtors. The chattel mortgage was on a printed form, and covered *‘‘*all the bars, tables, chairs, glasses, glassware, and other goods and chattels mentioned in the schedule hereunto annexed and now in the premises known as Ho. 688 Melrose avenue, as well as any and all other goods, chattels and fixtures which the parties of the first part may at any time hereafter purchase or acquire or become the owner of and place in the premises aforesaid.” Annexed to the chattel mortgage is a schedule denominated “ Schedule of property covered by the within mortgage and referred to therein, now on. the premises known as Ho. 688 Melrose Avenue.” This schedule contains a list of bars, tables, chairs, fixtures, etc. The articles seized by the defendant consisted largely of glassware which had been bought and was in the premises at the time the mortgage was made, but the schedule in no manner referred to this glassware. The trial justice, nevertheless, held that it was included in the chattel mortgage under the term “ glassware ” printed in the body of the instrument, and that the limitation of the words “ mentioned in the schedule hereunto annexed ” referred only to the words “ goods and chattels ” immediately preceding the limitation. This interpretation of the contract does not seem reasonable. See Broadhead v. Smith, 55 Hun, 499. The contract and schedules read together clearly show that the general printed words in the contract were intended to be limited by the description in the schedule, and the goods seized, not being described in the schedule, did not pass under the mortgage.

Judgment should, therefore, be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Page and Hotchkiss, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2004138EN.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/9 |

---

RESERVE LIST

OPEN COMPETITION COM/LA/3/02

(2004/C 138/06)

FRENCH-LANGUAGE TRANSLATORS (LA 7/LA 6)

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BAUDUIN Jean-François |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BELAUD Jean-François |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BERNARD Christine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BOQUET Sylvie |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BOISSINOT Claire |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BOURHY Gilles |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | CLAES Pierre |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | COLINET Catherine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | COSSU Stefania |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DAUBANTON Isabelle |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DEFORGE Anne |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DELAIT Nathalie |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DELORY Maurice |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | FAYT Danielle |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | FLAMMANG Barbara |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | FRANCOIS Christine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | GUILLAUME Didier |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | HAETTICH Wilhem |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | HAGELE Susanne |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KERESPARS Sandrine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | LADSOUS Pascale |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | LECOANET Catherine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | MAUREL Dominique |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | MIDRE Carine |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | OTTENS Nelly |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | PATTUS Eliane |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | RABIN Anne |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ROLAND Jean-Eric |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SADJI Bineta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SCHMITT Mireille |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SCHROYEN Rudy |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | WANLIN Philippe |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | WIOT Catherine |

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**774 CAF 13-01206**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ANNABELLA B.C.

------------------------------------------ ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SANDRA L.C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DAVID E. BLACKLEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LOCKPORT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Lisa Bloch Rodwin, J.), entered June 5, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent had neglected the subject child. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition entered on consent of the parties and the Attorney for the Child determining that her daughter is a neglected child ( see Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]). In appeal No. 2, respondent appeals from an order settling the record on appeal. Family Court refused to include in the record on appeal the transcript of a proceeding before a court attorney referee two months after the court’s determination wherein respondent told the referee that she consented to the order because she was coerced by her attorney to do so. Addressing first the order in appeal No. 2, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court properly refused to include the transcript in the record on appeal in appeal No. 1 inasmuch as the court’s determination in appeal No. 1 was not based upon that information ( see Balch v Balch [appeal No. 2], 193 AD2d 1080, 1080; see also Matter of Cicardi v Cicardi , 263 AD2d 686, 686; see generally Paul v Cooper [appeal No. 2], 100 AD3d 1550, 1551, lv denied 21 NY3d 855). Inasmuch as the order at issue in appeal No. 1 was entered upon the consent of the parties, appeal No. 1 must be dismissed ( see Matter of Holly B. [Scott B.] , 117 AD3d 1592, 1592; Matter of Cherilyn P. ,**-2- 774 CAF 13-01206**  192 AD2d 1084, 1084, lv denied 82 NY2d 652).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 296 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 296

Requiring each Member of the House of Representatives to hold at least 
        12 town meetings per year in the district of the Member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 1993

Mr. Santorum submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Requiring each Member of the House of Representatives to hold at least 
        12 town meetings per year in the district of the Member.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. TOWN MEETING REQUIREMENT.

    Each Member of the House of Representatives shall hold at least 12 
town meetings each calendar year in the district of the Member. If a 
Member does not comply with the preceding sentence, in a calendar year, 
the amount made available to the Member from the Official Mail 
Allowance for the next calendar year shall be reduced by two-thirds.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    As used in this resolution, the term ``Member of the House of 
Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2022231EN.01001901.xml

| 15.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/19

---

Decision to take resolution action in respect of Sberbank d.d.

(2022/C 231/09)

On 1 March 2022, the Single Resolution Board decided to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank d.d. This decision is based on Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1). The main elements of this decision are as follows:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 1 March 2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision No | SRB/EES/2022/21 |
| Addressee | Croatian National Bank |
| Institution under resolution | Sberbank d.d. |
| Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power | No |
| Resolution action | Sale of Business tool |
| Purchaser | Hrvatska Poštanska Banka |
| Fund aid | No |

Date of adoption of the decision

1 March 2022

Decision No

SRB/EES/2022/21

Addressee

Croatian National Bank

Institution under resolution

Sberbank d.d.

Application of the write-down and conversion of capital instruments power

No

Resolution action

Sale of Business tool

Purchaser

Hrvatska Poštanska Banka

Fund aid

No

More information about this decision can be found on the SRB’s official Internet: https://www.srb.europa.eu/en/cases

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 247 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 247

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish a point 
of order against considering any provision of any measure that contains 
                      a retroactive tax increase.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1993

   Mr. Ramstad (for himself, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Armey, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
McCollum, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Archer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
 Coble, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Kim, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Canady, Mr. Barton of 
Texas, Mr. Herger, Mr. Spence, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Goss, Mrs. Fowler, 
 Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Wolf, Mr. McMillan, 
 Mr. Nussle, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Royce, Mr. 
Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Cox, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Myers of Indiana, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Stump, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
 Buyer, Mr. Linder, Mr. Upton, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. King, 
 Mr. Walker, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Roth, 
  Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Blute, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
Gekas, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Crane, Mr. 
 Hansen, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, Mr. Condit, Mr. Klug, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
 Torkildsen, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Mica, Mr. 
 Schaefer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Talent, Mr. Skeen, 
Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Penny, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Portman, Mr. Grams, 
   Mr. Machtley, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Solomon, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
Bereuter, Mr. Hastert, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Horn, Mr. Franks of Connecticut, 
   Ms. Snowe, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Dornan, and Mr. Hobson) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish a point 
of order against considering any provision of any measure that contains 
                      a retroactive tax increase.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``8. No bill or joint resolution carrying any provision providing 
for a retroactive tax increase shall be reported in the House, nor 
shall an amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying a 
retroactive tax measure be in order during the consideration of a bill 
or joint resolution. A question of order under this clause may be 
raised at any time.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### DECATUR NEWS, INC. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 54231.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 12, 1973.

In re: Decatur News, Inc. applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and a Stay Order.

Writ denied. Prompt adversary hearing has been set for this date. Furthermore, relator has not moved for permission to copy the seized film in accordance with Heller v. New York.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-51671 and 333-99499) and related Prospectus of Highwoods Realty LimitedPartnership of our report dated February 20, 2004, except for Note 19 as to which the date is March 2, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statement and schedules of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 25, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                 Subsidiaries of ANADIGICS, Inc.

                                                       State of Jurisdiction
 Name of Subsidiary                                of Incorporation and % Owned

 ANADIGICS (U.K.) Limited                              United Kingdom   100%
 ANADIGICS, Limited                                    Israel           100%
 ANADIGICS Denmark ApS                                 Denmark          100%
 ANADIGICS Acquisition Corp.                           Delaware         100%
 ANADIGICS Holding Corp.                               Delaware         100%
 Broadband & Wireless Investors, Incorporated          Delaware         100%
 Integral Pathway, Inc.                                New Jersey       100%
 Telcom Devices Corp.                                  California       100%
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), and Wayne Wetherell, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

1.      The Company’s annual report on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December 31, 2003 (the ***“Report”***) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

2.      The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the periods covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Dated:   May  20, 2004 |                     |                 |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|
|                                  |                     |                 |
| /s/ S.  James Miller                  |                     | /s/  Wayne Wetherell |   |
| S.  James Miller, Jr.                 | Wayne  Wetherell         |                 |
| Chief  Executive Officer              | Chief  Financial Officer |                 |
|                                       |                          |                      |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----