alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 8, 2016

Mr. Zachary E. McFarlane

In Focus Media 4826 Brand Way

Sacramento

, CA 95819

Re: FAA

– 2015

– 8258

Dear Mr. McFarlane :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
EX-10.1:



 





EXHIBIT 10.3





Pursuant to a letter of understanding between Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("MMC") and its former
chairman and chief executive officer, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, dated as of November 9, 2004, MMC agreed to lease
certain office space and provide secretarial support and security to Mr. Greenberg through April 24, 2005.  On
April 12, 2005, MMC agreed to extend the term of the provision of the office space and the provision of secretarial
support through August 31, 2005.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20571

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jonathan Keith Senteno, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-528-1

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jonathan Keith 

Senteno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Senteno has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20571 Document: 00516423762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-20571

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-20571 Document: 00516423762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
A01A1055.

#### CARROLL v. THE STATE.

(554 SE2d 560)

Miller, Judge.

A jury found Freddie O. Carroll guilty of DUI, weaving over the roadway, and reckless driving. On appeal Carroll argues that the accusations based on these offenses were filed outside the two-year limitation period1 and that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statute of limitation.

On May 23, 1996, police issued Carroll uniform traffic citations charging him with three traffic offenses. These citations were filed in Atlanta City Court on May 24,1996. On July 10,1998, the State filed accusations for the same offenses.

1. “A uniform traffic citation serves as an accusation in any court having jurisdiction over the offense, except superior court.”2 The July 1998 accusations were based on the same conduct as the original citations (of which there had been no final disposition) and thus were a continuation of the prosecution of those citations.3

The arresting officer testified that on May 23, 1996, he arrested and charged Carroll with DUI.4 Although the better practice would have been to admit the uniform traffic citations into evidence, this is sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the crimes were prosecuted within the two-year limitation period.

2. Carroll argues that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statute of limitation. Carroll did not, however, submit a timely written request to charge on the statute of limitation5 and has therefore waived the right to any such charge.6

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Andrews, P. J., and Eldridge, J., concur.*

*40Decided August 28, 2001

Reconsideration denied October 15, 2001

*Chestney Hawkins Law Firm, Robert W. Chestney,*for appellant.

*Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor-General, Jennifer L. Moore, Assistant Solicitor-General,*for appellee.

1

**Under OCGA § 17-3-1 (d), “[p]rosecution for misdemeanors must be commenced within two years after the commission of the crime.”

2

 (Citations omitted.) *Prindle v. State,*240 Ga. App. 461 (1) (523 SE2d 44) (1999).

3

 See id. at 462; *State v. Rustin,*208 Ga. App. 431, 433 (2) (430 SE2d 765) (1993) (filing of formal accusation after issuance of uniform traffic citation would have been a superfluity); cf. *Freeman v. State,*194 Ga. App. 905, 908 (8) (392 SE2d 330) (1990).

4

 The weaving and reckless driving charges were merged with the DUI charge.

5

 Carroll submitted a request to charge only after the court failed to give instruction on the statute of limitation.

6

 See *Pryor v. State,*231 Ga. App. 136, 138 (6) (497 SE2d 805) (1998); *Wallace v. State,*216 Ga. App. 718, 720 (4) (455 SE2d 615) (1995).
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank et al., as Executors of Walter C. Garrison, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February 24, 1959.

*Vosseler & Donnelly*for petitioners.

*Francis A. McGrath*for American National Bed Cross and another.

Maximilian Moss, S.

The petition seeks a construction of the Fifth ’ ’ article of the will to determine the validity, construction and effect of a bequest made therein to ‘ ‘ American Bed Cross, Brooklyn Chapter. ’ ’ The petition discloses *that*American National Bed Cross ’’ is a corporation incorporated by an Act of Congress of the United States, and that American National Bed Cross, Brooklyn Chapter is the local branch of said incorporated corporation. A bequest will not be defeated by misnomer if the testator’s intent is ascertainable (Kerno*chan*v. *Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,*187 App. Div. 668, affd. 227 N. Y. 658). The court finds that the testator intended the gift provided in said article ‘ *‘*Fifth ” to be payable to ‘ ‘ The American National Bed Cross, Brooklyn Chapter ” maintaining its offices at No. 1 Bed Cross Place, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York.

Settle decree on notice.
#### Michael Shtafman et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special.Term, New York County,

November 26, 1958.

*Bergner <& Bergner*for plaintiffs.

*Graubard $ Moskovitz {Murray H. Warschauer*of counsel), for defendants.

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Plaintiffs move pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out the first affirmative *889defense upon the ground that it is irrelevant, scandalous and prejudicial, and defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The action is brought for specific performance, permanent injunction, accounting and damage and is based upon a contract of exclusive distributorship. Defendants’ motion is based on the first defense contained in the answer which states that for a period of two and one-half years prior to June, 1958, the plaintiffs, without the knowledge of the defendants, knowingly and willfully conspired to receive, and did receive and distribute a substantial amount of stolen Rokeach food products. The defense is supported by an affidavit made by a former truck driver of a firm manufacturing a food product under defendants’ name under a royalty arrangement and the affiant therein admits certain thefts under an arrangement with the individual plaintiff as receiver.

It is further stated that the affiant pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny and that the matters admitted were confirmed upon investigation by defendants. It is emphasized that plaintiffs have failed to make answer to the charges either upon a prior application for temporary injunctive relief or now. Apart from the need to make answer and to testify against themselves, the lack of merit to plaintiffs’ claim must be conclusively established hy document. This the moving affidavits fail to do. The rule may not be disregarded merely because as defendants believe it is useless to continue the litigation.

With respect to the defense, the plaintiffs urge that the allegations thereof are irrelevant, and, even if the acts constitute a breach of plaintiffs’ contract, they would be provable under a general denial; further, that the alleged misconduct is unconnected with the matter in litigation and consequently the doctrine of unclean hands has no application. The fact that the allegations are scandalous is of no moment if they are material (Led*with*v. *Ignatius,*179 Misc. 394, affd. 265 App. Div. 987; *Hurley*v. *Hurley,*266 App. Div. 701). Even if the parties are not in the position of agent and principal, respectively, nevertheless, the alleged procurement of articles which are subject of the distributorship is relevant thereto and to the imposition of any obligation upon the defendant in equity. The acts are not so clearly unrelated to the matters in issue as to require the elimination of the defense.

The motions are denied.
# Úradný vestník C 57I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 057I |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6320. februára 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 057I

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6320. februára 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | Rada |
| 2020/C 57 I/01 | Rozhodnutie Rady z 17. februára 2020, ktorým sa vymenúva jeden člen správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť za Nemecko | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Rada

2020/C 57 I/01

Rozhodnutie Rady z 17. februára 2020, ktorým sa vymenúva jeden člen správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť za Nemecko

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

Rada

| 20.2.2020 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CI 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2020

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CI 57/1

---

ROZHODNUTIE RADY

z 17. februára 2020,

ktorým sa vymenúva jeden člen správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť za Nemecko

(2020/C 57 I/01)

RADA EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE,

so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,

so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1922/2006, ktorým sa zriaďuje Európsky inštitút pre rodovú rovnosť (1), a najmä na jeho článok 10,

so zreteľom na zoznamy kandidátov, ktoré Rade predložili vlády členských štátov,

keďže:

| (1) | Rada svojím rozhodnutím z 27. mája 2019 (2) vymenovala členov a náhradníkov správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť na obdobie od 1. júna 2019 do 31. mája 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Rada svojím rozhodnutím z 27. mája 2019 (2) vymenovala členov a náhradníkov správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť na obdobie od 1. júna 2019 do 31. mája 2022.

| (2) | Vláda Nemecka navrhla na neobsadené miesto člena jedného kandidáta, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Vláda Nemecka navrhla na neobsadené miesto člena jedného kandidáta,

PRIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTIE:

Článok 1

Za člena správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť za Nemecko sa na zvyšný čas funkčného obdobia, ktoré trvá do 31. mája 2022 týmto vymenúva:

ZÁSTUPCOVIA VLÁD

| Krajina | Člen/členka | Náhradník/náhradníčka |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Nemecko | pani Daniela BEHRENS | |

Krajina

Člen/členka

Náhradník/náhradníčka

Nemecko

pani Daniela BEHRENS

Článok 2

Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť dňom jeho prijatia.

V Bruseli, 17. februára 2020.

Za Radu

predseda

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 403, 30.12.2006, s. 9.

1

(2)  Rozhodnutie Rady z 27. mája 2019, ktorým sa vymenúvajú členovia a náhradníci správnej rady Európskeho inštitútu pre rodovú rovnosť (Ú. v. EÚ C 185, 29.5.2019, s. 1).

2

---
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




Internal Segue Confidential




	 	 	 
	TO:

	 	Michael Sullivan
	 
	 	 
	FROM:

	 	Joseph K. Krivickas, President & CEO
	 
	 	 
	DATED:

	 	August 10, 2005
	 
	 	 
	RE:

	 	Terms & Conditions





The following confirms the terms and conditions of your promotion into your new role:





	 	•	 	Effective date is August 15, 2005.
	 
	 	•	 	Your title is Chief Financial Officer, reporting to Joseph Krivickas.
	 
	 	•	 	Your base salary will be increased to $175,000 per year.
	 
	 	•	 	Your target management bonus (MBO) pay will be increased to $35,000 based on a twelve
month period.
	 
	 	•	 	Pending approval by the Board of Directors’ Compensation Committee, you will be granted
an option to purchase 25,000 shares of Segue Common Stock, priced at the close of market
August 15, 2005. These options will vest over four years, if you remain employed at
Segue, at the following vesting schedule: 1/8 after six months of employment, and 1/48
per month thereafter, and will be subject to the terms and conditions of Segue’s option
plan and related option agreement.
	 
	 	•	 	Upon termination of employment as Chief Financial Officer without cause or termination
of employment without cause from the Company, or death, said Executive will receive six
months base salary plus benefits. Cause is defined as committing of a crime, material and
repeated failure to carry out your assigned duties following written notice of such
failures, or adjudicated acts of dishonesty.
	 
	 	•	 	As the Chief Financial Officer you are covered under the Company’s Change-In-Control
Plan that upon both a Change-In-Control and termination of Executive’s employment as Chief
Financial Officer, as defined (“double trigger”), said Executive receives one year of base
salary plus benefits and full vesting of stock options.
	 
	 	•	 	You understand and agree that you remain bound by Segue’s Employee Agreement.




All details as listed above are pending final approval by Segue’s Board of Directors Compensation
Committee.




	 	 	 
	/s/
Joseph K.
Krivickas 


	 	 
	Joseph K. Krivickas
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Accepted by:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Michael Sullivan 


	 	 
	Michael Sullivan
# Iris Oifigiúil C 138I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | C 138I |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 6328 Aibreán 2020 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 138I

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

6328 Aibreán 2020

---

| Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Fógraí |
| | FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH |
| | An Coimisiún Eorpach |
| 2020/C 138 I/01 | Ráiteas ón gCoimisiún maidir le Rialachán (AE) 2020/560 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle lena leasaítear Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 508/2014 agus (AE) Uimh. 1379/2013 maidir le bearta sonracha chun tionchar na ráige de COVID-19 ar an earnáil iascaigh agus dobharshaothraithe a mhaolú | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

IV   Fógraí

FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

An Coimisiún Eorpach

2020/C 138 I/01

Ráiteas ón gCoimisiún maidir le Rialachán (AE) 2020/560 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle lena leasaítear Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 508/2014 agus (AE) Uimh. 1379/2013 maidir le bearta sonracha chun tionchar na ráige de COVID-19 ar an earnáil iascaigh agus dobharshaothraithe a mhaolú

1

---

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

IV Fógraí

FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

An Coimisiún Eorpach

| 28.4.2020 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | CI 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2020

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

CI 138/1

---

Ráiteas ón gCoimisiún maidir le Rialachán (AE) 2020/560 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle lena leasaítear Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 508/2014 agus (AE) Uimh. 1379/2013 maidir le bearta sonracha chun tionchar na ráige de COVID-19 ar an earnáil iascaigh agus dobharshaothraithe a mhaolú

(2020/C 138 I/01)

Is díol sásaimh don Choimisiún é go bhfuil Parlaimint na hEorpa agus an Chomhairle ag glacadh gan mhoill an togra uaidh leis an gCiste Eorpach Muirí agus Iascaigh a mhodhnú chun tionchar na ráige de COVID-19 a mhaolú agus chun cuidiú lenár gcuid iascairí agus lenár gcuid táirgeoirí in earnáil an dobharshaothraithe.

Is mian leis an gCoimisiún a chur i bhfios go láidir go bhfuil rialú ar iascach agus bailiú sonraí eolaíocha ríthábhachtach chun bainistiú inbhuanaithe a dhéanamh ar stoic éisc ar bhonn na comhairle eolaíche is fearr dá bhfuil ar fáil agus ar bhonn an fhorfheidhmithe iontaofa. Níor cheart meath a theacht ar an toradh a bhíonn ar na heilimintí fíor-riachtanacha sin den Chomhbheartas Iascaigh de bharr an laghdaithe ar acmhainní airgeadais.

Is mian leis an gCoimisiún a chur in iúl go láidir go dtugtar leis an togra uaidh, mar aon leis na leasuithe a rinneadh air, aghaidh ar an ngéarchéim uathúil atá ann de thoradh na ráige de COVID-19 agus ar an ngéarghá eisceachtúil le tacaíocht chun dul i ngleic le hiarmhairtí na ráige sin. Níor cheart go ndéanfaí réamhbhreithiúnas mar gheall orthu ar an Rialachán a bheidh ann amach anseo maidir leis an gCiste Eorpach Muirí agus Iascaigh.

---
#### Lenard Ray WILSON v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, et al.

No. 88-C-0115.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Wilson, Lenard Ray; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and prohibition; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7619; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 82-19957.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 1206.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

BRENT LEE MOSS 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 169 DB 2014 (No. 10 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 202632 

(Out of State) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 13, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Brent Lee Moss, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Ex parte ALABAMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (Re: Tommie Lee EDWARDS v. ALABAMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.).

85-1326.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 29, 1987.

Robert W. Bradford, Jr., of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, for petitioner.

Robert J. Varley of Legal Services Corp. of Alabama, Montgomery, for respondent.

*242PER CURIAM.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

TORBERT, C.J., and HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

MADDOX, J., recused.

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part):

I would grant the writ.

I agree with the Court of Civil Appeals in everything except its interpretation of *Derico v. Duncan,*410 So.2d 27 (Ala.1982), and its application to the facts of this case.

I agree with Judge Holmes’s dissent for the following reason.

In *Derico,*there was a debt owed to Duncan of $6,381 on a contract to repair Ms. Derico’s home. In addition, Duncan paid an existing debt of $7,619 owed on the home by Ms. Derico. Duncan combined these principal obligations and financed the total amount of $14,000. This Court held that the $14,000 contract was made in violation of the requirements of the Mini-Code and was null, void, and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. This Court further held that “that portion of Plaintiffs indebtedness represented by the loan *(as distinguished from the debt on the contract to*repair) is void, including both the principal and the interest.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, that portion of the indebtedness represented by the loan (i.e., $7,619 plus interest) as opposed to that represented by the contract to repair (i.e., $6,381) was null, void, and unenforceable. The contract to repair survived.

In this case, Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company paid its insured under an insurance contract the amount of the collision damage caused by negligence of Tommie L. Edwards. Farm Bureau was obligated to do this under the terms of its contract with its insured, and Farm Bureau was subrogated to the rights its insured had against Edwards. Edwards admitted that he owed the indebtedness paid by Farm Bureau to repair its insured’s automobile, prior to signing the note which was evidence of this indebtedness. The trial court found in favor of Farm Bureau and entered a judgment in the amount of $2,449.52, which was consistent with finding for Farm Bureau on its count seeking recovery under the theory of an account stated. See *Martin v. Stoltenborg,*273 Ala. 456, 459, 142 So.2d 257 (1962).

This case is not distinguishable from *Derico.*

For the foregoing reason I would hold that Farm Bureau is entitled to recover $2,449.52 on an account stated. ■

I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand to the Court of Civil Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

TORBERT, C.J., and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
#### Bundrant *v.*Rikal et al., Appellants.

*66Argued November 16, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*G. Dale*Blair, for appellants.

*Elmer G. Elaber,*for appellee.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Clyde S. Shumaker for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. &.C. 2d 499.
**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 quarterly report of Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dan S. Dugan, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman 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: 

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 operating results of the Company. 

| /s/ Dan S. Dugan                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| Dan S. Dugan                                      |   |
| Chairman, President and   Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                              |   |
| Date: November 14, 2005                           |   |
OFFICE OF THE **AlTORNEY** GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUffIN**

**Tour inquiry**  **0** ark the follovrln&

qulmtl "whothoror **mnt,** oan employ rnrd 

### at 0orae Sta Board, 

### ormewagea woman ae 8te

### matron anb 107 or thlr