alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013043EN.01002202.xml

| 15.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/22

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6768 — Reggeborgh/Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 43/06

On 9 January 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6768. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6768. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### John Washington NIMMO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 15, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; James M. Reasbeck, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Order entered May 2 1 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00343
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N .T., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 04
- 10316
- Z 

### O RDER By order entered May 4, 2015, we granted c ourt reporter Glenda E. Finkley ’s second request to extend time to file the reporter’s record and directed her to file the record no later than May 14, 2015. To date, however, the record has not been filed

. Bec ause this is an accelerated appeal from a decree terminating Mother’s parental rights and the record was first due March 16, 2015, we ORDER the record be filed no later than May 26, 2015 . We CAUTION Ms. Finkley that failure to comply with this order may r esult in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies . Accordingly, if necessary the trial court shall arrange for a substitute reporter. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.4(b)(1).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable David Lopez, Presiding Judge of the 256th Judicial District Court; Ms. Finkley; and counsel for the parties. /s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG PRESIDING JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949244
<NAME> ALTERNATE MARKETING NETWORKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,372
<PP&E>                                             845
<DEPRECIATION>                                     608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,172
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,203
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,684)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,270
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Geos Communications,
Inc., formerly known as i2 Telecom International, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard H Robinson, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.




Date:
      :May 3,
      2010
              /s/ Richard H. RobersonRichard
      H. Roberson
                Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
                Accounting
      Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Cotton States Life Insurance Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-30696, 333-00795, 333-00793, 333-110738, and 033-30696 on Form S-8 of Cotton
States Life Insurance Company of our report dated March 14, 2003 with respect to
the consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity, cash flows, and
comprehensive income of Cotton States Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries
for the year ended December 31, 2001, which appears in the December 31, 2003
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cotton States Life Insurance Company and
subsidiaries.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2004
#### UNITED THEATERS OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a United Mini-Adult Theater, 7829 N. E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Rebecca Crone, individually and James Rhort, individually and Abe Attenson, Rebecca Crone and James Rhort in their capacities as officers and/or directors of United Theaters of Florida, jointly and severally, and Celia Wenesette, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Richard E. GERSTEIN as State Attorney of the llth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-968.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1965 to 1998 



           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

1998.....    65.9     66.0
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.
No. 11477.

#### The City of Cleveland *v.*McGovern.

Decided January 18, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Newton D. Baker,*city solicitor, and *Messrs. Wilcox, Wilkin, Stevens & Locher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hart, Canfield & Croke,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment of ihe court of common pleas affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear, Davis, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,971
<PP&E>                                         126,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,638
<BONDS>                                        126,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,806
<OTHER-SE>                                     (99,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,024
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,125)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,433)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)


</TABLE>
From: Carlson, Sara [Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:00 PM

To: Fortin, Kelly; Land, Eva

Cc: Maness, Katie; Rahul Pendse (rpendse@trinityconsultants.com); Grygar, Bill

Subject: Anadarko Permit and Modification Processing Priority

Hey Kelly,

As we discussed in the meeting yesterday Anadarko would like the following priority to the air permit 

applications and modification EPA currently has for Anadarko:

1. Discoverer Spirit (OCS-EPA-R4005-M3) modification

2. Bob Douglas PSD/Title V air permit application

3. BlackHawk and BlackHornet PSD/Title V air permit applications

We understand that although the BlackHawk and BlackHornet (BH/BH) applications were received by 

EPA prior to the others this will put BH/BH behind them. 

Thanks,

Sara Carlson

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

EHS Representative II, Gulf of Mexico

Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

832-636-1273 (office)

832-506-0888 (cell)

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
# C_2012302EN.01000601.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 October 2012

2012/C 302/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3002 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80325 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5728 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2112 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3935 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,915 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 282,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0735 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5782 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3375 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2682 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2750 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0805 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5775 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5951 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 444,13 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1983 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2226 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4810 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 467,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9691 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,831 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,2520 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,721 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6258 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5844 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,4220 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3002

JPY

Japanese yen

102,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80325

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5728

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2112

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3935

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,915

HUF

Hungarian forint

282,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0735

RON

Romanian leu

4,5782

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3375

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2682

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2750

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0805

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5775

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5951

KRW

South Korean won

1 444,13

ZAR

South African rand

11,1983

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2226

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4810

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 467,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9691

PHP

Philippine peso

53,831

RUB

Russian rouble

40,2520

THB

Thai baht

39,721

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6258

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5844

INR

Indian rupee

67,4220

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### BUYER FINANCE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. VENETIAN RAMBLER, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 67-343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 3, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
SMTEK International, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-02969 and 333-31349) and the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74400, 333-08689 and 333-72139) of SMTEK International,
Inc. of our report dated August 15, 2000, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of SMTEK International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30,
2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and stockholders' equity for each of
the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2000, which report appears
in the SMTEK International, Inc. 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
August 25, 2000
### 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1
1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1
1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F o r t B e r t h o l d I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n ; N o r t h D a k o t a , U S E P A R e g i o n 8 

# £ D i s c l a i m e r : E P A m a k e s n o c l a i m r e g a r d i n g t h e a c c u r a c y o r p r e c i s i o n o f t h e s e d a t a . Q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e d a t a s h o u l d b e r e f e r r e d t o t h e s o u r c e a g e n c y . T h i s m a p d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t E P A ' s p o s i t i o n o n a n y I n d i a n C o u n t r y b o u n d a r i e s o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a t u s o f a n y s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n . D a t e : J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 M a p P r o j e c t i o n : U T M , M e t e r s , Z o n e 1 3 N , N A D 8 3 . D a t a S o u r c e s : R e s e r v a t i o n s - U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; C

o u n t i e s - U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; P o v e r t y - U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u B l o c k G r o u p s ( 2 0 1 0 ) ; B a s e - M i c r o s o f t B i n g w e b s e r v i c e ( 2 0 1 2 ) . 

### 1 P r o p o s e d G a s W e l l s F o r t B e r t h o l d I n d i a n R e s e r v a t i o n P o p u l a t i o n B e l o w P o v e r t y L i n e 4 % t o 1 0 % 1 0 % t o 1 6 . 8 % 1 6 . 8 % t o 2 0 % 2 0 % t o 3 2 %

A r e a E n l a r g e d 0 3 . 5 7 1 0 . 5 1 . 7 5 M i l e s 0 8 1 6 4 K i l o m e t e r s 

## L a k e S 

# a k a k a w e a
S-260

(sump pit)

Cooling tower 

blowdown

ASU 

blowdown

RCC distillate

Water Treatment Pond

Petcoke pile runoff &

Adjacent roadway

Slag pile

runoff

Stormwater

runoff

Stormwater Pond Outfall to

Wabash River

RCC distillate – This is the sample point that appears to be part of the basis for the

proposed limits on the gasification process. RCC distillate water is very clean

distillate water.

S-260 – Generally, the waters in this sump pit are placed back into the process. 

However during outages or other times when the amount of water is too much for

the process to handle, this water is sent to the water treatment pond when

appropriate. Waters that could be fed into this S-260 area include:

• Steam drains

• Oxygen & air compressor sumps

• Concrete wash down

• Boiler blowdown

• Building drain

• Stormwater runoff from within gasification plant pad

• Process line & equipment cleaning (generally limited to outages)

ASU blowdown - Air separation unit (ASU) chiller (industrial water) blowdown

sgSolutions, LLC (Indiana) – Flow Diagram of Gasification Wastestreams

January 31, 2014
#### DAN GRAVES MASONRY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 71-197, 71-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 28, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005                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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of The                Amacore Group, Inc. |

|   | /s/                Clark A.                Marcus                            Clark                A. MarcusChief                Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
260 La. 1120

#### PARISH NATIONAL BANK v. BOGALUSA SCHOOL BOARD and First State Bank and Trust Co.

No. 52185.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1972.

In re: Bogalusa School Board applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 256 So.2d 763.

Writ denied. No error of law.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Gregory K. RoeperGregory K. RoeperChief Executive OfficerAugust 1, 2005 20