alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**DEPA RTMENT OF THE A**  **I R FORCE**  HEADQUARTERS AIR FOR CE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY

03 Oct 1 4
MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC

- 10
FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3O 6500 South MacArthur Blvd (AJW31AF) Oklahoma City , OK 73169

SUBJECT: Addition to Exemption 7960 (Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10191)
1. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Exemption 7960 was granted to the United States Air Force on 24 Jan 2003 (renew ed as 7960 F on 11 Jul 20 1 3 ) and exempts certain activities of the USAF from the prov isions of 14 CFR §91.209 (a)(1) and (b). The requirement for the Air Force, and other military

service’s aircraft participating in approved joint or combined air operations, to conduct night vision device (NVD) training with lights out in Military Operati ng Areas (MOA) continues. W e request two additional MOA s be added to the Exemption IAW 14 CFR Part 11.

2. The Air Force respectfully requests additional MOA’s be added to the list of approved areas. The list of MOAs to be covered under this exemptio n is maintained as Attachment 1 to this letter. Changes to this list f rom the previous list include two addition al of MOA s

.
3. The Air Force will continue to abide by all the terms and conditions of Exemption 7960, as amended. These include, but are not limited to: issuing a NOTAM at least 48 hours before the lights out operations are to begin; providing annual informational brie fings to local flying organizations and other civilian users within 100 nautical miles of the MOA airspace; developing a letter of agreement with the servicing air traffic control facility ; and continuous radar monitoring by

military personnel to detect al l nonparticipating aircraft. As lights out NVD operations have been conducted safely by these units since this exemption was granted in 2003, the Air Force Flight Standards Agency , on behalf of the Department of the Air Force, requests yo ur consideration in granting this request.

3. Imay be contacted at (405) 582

- 50 17 , e
- mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil . Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance.

ERI C D. MEYN , LtCol , USAF Chief, Flight Directives Division (IMA)**ATTACHMENT 1** 201 4 MOA List for FAA Exemption 7960 * = new or change for 201 4
MOA (All subdivisions unless otherwise noted. e.g. Eagle Hi & Lo , 1 & 2, etc. )

Adirondack Galena Pike Airburst Gamecock Pine Hill Avon Gandy Pinon Canyon Bagdad Gladden Powder River Basinger Goose Red Hills Beaver Hart Reserve Birch Hay s Reveille Bison Hill Top Rose Hill Bronco Hog (Hi N&S, L o N&S) Saddle Brownwood Howard Salem Brush Creek Jackal Sells Buckeye Jarbidge Sevier Buffalo Juniper Sey mour Johnson Bulldog Kingsville Smokey Camden Ridge La Veta (Low) Snoopy Carthage Lake Andes Steelhead Cato Lake Placid Stony Cheyenne Lindbergh Susitna Condor Lowville Taiban Cougar (Hi and Lo)* Lucin Talon Cranberry Marian Tiger Cry pt Moody Tombstone Delta Morenci Truman Desert Mt. Dora Tupper DeSoto Naknek Turtle Devils Lake O’Neill Twelve Mile Dolphin Oly mpic Viper Duke Outlaw Volk Eielson Owy hee Warrior Eureka Palatka White Elk Falls Paradise Yankee Farmville Pecos Yukon Fox Pickett
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3961 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3961

  To amend the Act known as the ``Miller Act'' to raise the value of 
 contracts for which performance bonds and payment bonds are required 
                            under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 1994

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act known as the ``Miller Act'' to raise the value of 
 contracts for which performance bonds and payment bonds are required 
                            under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED VALUE OF CONTRACTS FOR WHICH BONDS REQUIRED UNDER 
              MILLER ACT.

    The Act of August 24, 1935 (40 U.S.C. 270a et seq.), popularly 
known as the ``Miller Act'', is amended in the first section by 
striking out ``$25,000'' in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``$100,000''.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2015045EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/1

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2015/C 45/01)

The following information is brought to the attention of Ms Olena Leonidivna Lukash, Mr. Viktor Ivanovych Ratushniak, Mr. Dmytro Volodymyrovych Tabachnyk and Ms Raisa Vasylivna Bohatyriova, persons appearing under nos. 6, 8, 16 and 17 in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

1

2

Following a review of the list of designated persons in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, the Council intends to renew the measures in those acts. The Council has also amended the criteria for designation in those acts by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 (3) and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 (4).

3

4

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with a new statement of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons and the elements the Council holds in its file regarding their designation, before 13 February 2015, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 24, 30.1.2015, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 24, 30.1.2015, p. 16.

4

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6284

RICKY LEANDER GAMBLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE KENWORTHY; OLIVER S. MUHAMMAD; KHALIL AKBAR; CHAPLAIN 

HOVIS,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CHAPLAIN GIDDIONS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03053-F)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Leander Gamble, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Leander Gamble appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his claims 

alleging Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, as well 

as his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. Gamble v. Kenworthy, 

No. 5:12-ct-03053-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2015). 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
#### AMERICAN TIRE CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TIRE SERVICE CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-560.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 26, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### John Eldon THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Preston FIELDS, Jr., and John Chiariello, Individually and d/b/a Jay-Bee Nursery, Inc., jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 73-760.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 11, 1974.

Sammy Cacciatore, of Law Offices of Nance & Cacciatore, Melbourne, for appellant.

Edna L. Caruso, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the evidence in this personal injury case and determined thereupon, with counsel’s advice, that the damages of $6,000 awarded the permanently injured plaintiff were legally inadequate. We reverse upon the authority of Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1969); Grossman v. Short, 235 So.2d 11 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1970), cert. writ discharged with opinion Short v. Grossman, 245 So.2d 217 (Fla.1971); *see*McNash v. Oxenhandler, 288 So.2d 304 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1974); Rodriguez v. Allgreen Corp., 242 So.2d 741 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1971).

Counsel suggest and concede that if we deem the verdict inadequate so as to necessitate a new trial on the issue of damages then the issue of liability should likewise be retried. We adopt the suggestion and reverse and remand for a new trial upon all issues.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN, J., and RUDNICK, VAUGHN J., Associate Judge, concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT
4.7.1
 SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE
PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE
INDENTURE, DATED AS OF DECEMBER 30, 2005
  Preliminary Statements
    1. Amendment of the Indenture.
   2. Effect of Supplemental Indenture.
 3. Trustee.




---



##### 



PAXSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/  Adam K. WeinsteinName:
    Adam K. WeinsteinTitle:
    Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS
 
 2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



By:
    /s/  Richard GarciaName:
    Richard GarciaTitle:
    Vice President and Treasurer of
each of such Subsidiary Guarantors 4




---



##### 



AMERICA 51, L.P.By:
    Paxson Communications of Phoenix-51, Inc.,its General Partner and Limited PartnerBy:
    Paxson Communications Television, Inc.,its Limited PartnerBy:
    /s/  Richard GarciaName:
    Richard GarciaTitle:
    Vice President and Treasurer of
such General and Limited PartnersTHE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NA, as TrusteeBy:
    /s/  Geraldine CreswellName:
    Geraldine CreswellTitle:
    Assistant Treasurer 5
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60760

Summary Calendar

SALAH AHMAD NAJJAR

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72 815 810

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Salah Ahmad Najjar has filed a petition for review of a final order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).

Najjar argues that, in determining that he did not establish the requisite

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” the IJ failed to consider the

hardship factors in the aggregate and their cumulative effect. Although this is

couched as a legal question, Najjar is asking this court to review the IJ’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60760

2

hardship determination. We lack jurisdiction to do so. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). We

dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks review from the BIA’s

discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal.

Najjar argues thatthe IJ acted contrary to law by questioning whether his

stepchildren are qualifying relatives for cancellation purposes;that the IJ denied

his Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair hearing by questioning his good

moral character and erred in finding marital fraud; and that the differential

treatment of Arabs in immigration courts violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Because Najjar was denied cancellation of removal because he failed to

establish the hardship requirement, we do not address whether the IJ erred in

questioning whether Najjar met the other requirements. Najjar’s due process

and equal protection claims are unavailing. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349

F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003); Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir.

2006). The petition is denied as to these claims.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3928

To expand the special program for the sharing of Forest Service timber

sale receipts to include those counties in which national forests are

situated that are affected by decisions related to the California spotted

owl.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1994

Mr. HERGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To expand the special program for the sharing of Forest

Service timber sale receipts to include those counties

in which national forests are situated that are affected

by decisions related to the California spotted owl.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHARING OF FOREST SERVICE TIMBER SALE

4 RECEIPTS.

5 Section 13982(a)(2) of the Omnibus Budget Rec6 onciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–66; 107 Stat.

7 681; 16 U.S.C. 500 note) is amended by inserting ‘‘Cali8 fornia spotted owl or the’’ before ‘‘northern spotted owl’’.
2

•HR 3928 IH

Æ
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 18 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Ant on io Str ai gh t ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa - Ced ar Rapi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 3, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 3, 2 01 4 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Ant on io St rai gh t di rect ly ap pe al s aft er th e di stri ct co ur t re voke d his supe rv is ed 1 rel eas e an d se nt en ced hi m ab ov e hi s C h a p te r 7 ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge to th e
The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa .st atut or y m ax im um of 24 m on th s in pr is on . St rai gh t’s c o u n s e l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d h as fil eda br ie f, arg ui ng th atStr ai gh t’s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le

. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st r i c t c ou rt di d no t im po se an un reas on ab le se nt en ce, pa rti cu la rly in li gh t of St rai gh t’s rep eat ed vi ol at io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns an d th e co ur t’s ex te ns iv e st at em en t of reas on s to su pp or t it s se nt en ci ng de ci si on . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Th un de r , 55 3 F.3 d 60 5, 60 8- 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (rev oc at io n se nt en ce ab ov e ad vi so ry ran ge w a s no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le whe re de fen da nt rep eat ed ly vi ol at ed su pe rv is ed rel eas e); Uni te d St at es v. La riso n , 43 2 F.3 d 92 1, 92 4 (8 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6) (aff irming st at ut ory m ax im

um rev oc at io n se nt en ce whe re di st ric t co ur t jus ti fie d de ci si on b y g i v i ng su pp or ti ng reas on s) ; se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Gro wd en , 66 3 F.3 d 98 2, 98 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (rev oc at io n se nt en ce is rev ie wed fo r subs ta n t i v e reas on ab le ne ss un de r de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard ).
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
* 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

March 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40961

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISIDRO LANDEROS-BOLANOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2601-1

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Isidro Landeros-Bolanos

(Landeros), has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Landeros filed no response to his attorney’s motion. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal except that the district court’s

written judgment fails to reflect the dismissal of count four

(bringing an unauthorized alien to the United States for purpose

of commercial advantage or private gain in violation of 8 U.S.C.
No. 05-40961

-2-

§ 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii)), which the district court dismissed on the

Government’s motion at Landeros’s sentencing hearing. “[A]

simple remand to correct such clerical error is proper.” United

States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 372 (5th Cir. 2003); see also

FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. Accordingly, we DENY counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw, but we pretermit further briefing, AFFIRM

Landeros’s conviction and sentence, and REMAND to the district

court with an instruction to correct the judgment to reflect

dismissal of count four against Landeros.
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Digital Angel Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph J. Grillo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended; and





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





/s/ Joseph J. GrilloJoseph J. GrilloPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 31, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Digital Angel Corporation and will be retained by Digital Angel Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      32.1**













**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      E. Krawitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.














/s/
      Michael E. Krawitz


Michael
      E. Krawitz


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      15,
      2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Applied Digital
      Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1

 

 



 

 

 



 

 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 



 

 



 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 

 

 



 

 



 

 



 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 3(ii)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

         AU 'N AG, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:    That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of AU 'N AG, INC., a
resolution was duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to
be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is
as follows:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be
         amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "FIRST" so that, as
         amended said Article shall be and read as follow:

         "FIRST:  The name of the corporation is INTERUNION FINANCIAL 
         CORPORATION."

SECOND:   That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a
special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware at which meeting of the necessary number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor the amendment.

THIRD:    That said amendment as duly adopted is in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware.

FOURTH:   That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by
reason of said amendment.

IT WITNESS WHEREOF, said AU 'N AG, INC. has caused its corporate seal to be
hereunto affixed and this certificate to be signed by Georges Benarroch, its
President and John J. Illidge, its Secretary, this 11th day of April, 1994.



/s/ John J. Illidge                                  /s/  Georges Benarroch
------------------------------                       ----------------------
John J. Illidge                                      Georges Benarroch
Secretary                                            President



                              Page E - 13 of E - 69