alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Alston, Chafin and Senior Judge Haley 

RUIZ DRYWALL & CLEANING INC. AND 

 BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2187-14-1 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 14, 2015 

MAURICIO R. MORALES 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (S. Vernon Priddy III; Michael L. Goff, Jr.; Two Rivers Law Group, 

P.C., on brief), for appellants. 

 (Halbert T. Dail; Joynes & Gaidies, on brief), for appellee. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

 Ruiz Drywall & Cleaning Inc. and Builders Mutual Insurance Company (collectively 

employer) appeal the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) finding 

that Mauricio R. Morales (claimant) suffered a compensable injury to his lower back and left leg 

and awarding temporary total disability benefits for the period of August 17 through August 18, 

2013 and from September 9, 2013 and continuing. Employer argues the commission erred in 

holding that (1) claimant proved he suffered a compensable injury; (2) “no reasonable basis in 

the record” existed to disturb the deputy commissioner’s credibility determinations; and (3) “no 

direct trauma” referred to the absence of a traumatic event immediately before an office visit to a 

doctor. 

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Morales v. Ruiz Drywall & Cleaning Inc., JCN VA02000015819 (Nov. 4, 2014). 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1250 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, as the ‘‘Lucas Lowe 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. 

RATCLIFFE, Mr. GOODEN, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. WEBER

of Texas, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. FLORES, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. 

CASTRO of Texas, Mr. ROY, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HURD of Texas, Mr. 

MARCHANT, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CUELLAR, 

Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. ALLRED, Mr. 

VEASEY, Mr. VELA, Mr. DOGGETT, Mrs. FLETCHER, Mr. BRADY, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE, and Ms. GARCIA of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LUCAS LOWE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 11158 Highway 146 North in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1250 IH

1 Hardin, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Of7 fice’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART TWO

NON-DISCRIMINATION AND CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION

NON-DISCRIMINATION AND CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION

Article 24

(ex Article 21 TEC)

(ex Article 21 TEC)

The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for a citizens' initiative within the meaning of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 227.

Every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman established in accordance with Article 228.

Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions or bodies referred to in this Article or in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union in one of the languages mentioned in Article 55(1) of the Treaty on European Union and have an answer in the same language.

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


 

 Exhibit 10(i)

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

 

To the Board of Directors of

MML Bay State Life Insurance Company

 

        We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 8 to Registration Statement No. 33-76920 on Form N-4 of our
report dated February 15, 2002 for the LifeTrust Segment of MML Bay State Variable Annuity Separate Account 1 and of our report dated March 1, 2002, on MML Bay State Life Insurance Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs referring to the use of statutory accounting practices and the change of certain accounting practices as a result of the State of Connecticut Insurance Department’s adoption of the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners’ Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual effective January 1, 2001, all of which practices differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America), appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information.

 

DELOITTE
& TOUCHE 
LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut

April 25, 2002
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1114 

To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit 

to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois (for herself, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. CONNOLLY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of 

New York, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. COHEN, 

Ms. SPEIER, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS

of Illinois, Mr. WELCH, Ms. PLASKETT, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LIPINSKI, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. 

BROWNLEY of California, Ms. UNDERWOOD, Mr. MOULTON, and Ms. 

DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service 

to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects 

of gun violence on public health. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1114 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE ON 

2 PUBLIC HEALTH. 

3 Not later than one year after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Surgeon 

5 General of the Public Health Service shall submit to Con6 gress a report on the effects on public health of gun vio7 lence in the United States during the relevant period, and 

8 the status of actions taken to address such effects. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-01000-CV

CONTRACTORS SOURCE, INC., Appellant

V.

AMEGY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION D/B/A AMEGY BANK OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 157th District Court of Harris County.

(Tr. Ct. No. 2012-53936).

TO THE 157TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 5th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on October 22, 2013. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Contractors 

Source, Inc., pay all appellate costs.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 5, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

April 17, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0246n.06

Case No. 14-3861

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN ARIAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: GUY, MOORE, McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jonathan Arias was hired by the United States Border Patrol 

through the Federal Career Intern Program in 2009. His employment was terminated for 

deficient performance prior to completion of his two-year probationary period. In this action, 

Arias alleges that he is of African-American and Hispanic descent and that his termination was 

motivated by race discrimination. The district court dismissed the action as barred by res 

judicata pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) because Arias had previously 

voluntarily dismissed an action that was based on the same termination. In fact, Arias had twice 

before voluntarily dismissed federal court actions that asserted wrongful termination claims 

stemming from the same occurrence and, in the second action, expressly noted that the dismissal 

was “with prejudice.” 
Case No. 14-3861

Arias v. Napolitano, et al.

- 2 -

Arias argues on appeal that the earlier dismissals are not entitled to adjudication-on-themerits effect. His arguments are meritless and are fairly and adequately addressed in the district 

court’s opinion. To issue another opinion reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and is 

unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal based on the analysis 

contained in the opinion of the district court.
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

April 6, 2015

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Ali Yazdchi

v. Texas

No. 14-7087

(Your No. PD-0007-13, PD-0008-13)

Dear Clerk:

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 13 2015

AbelAcosia, Clerk

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Sincerely,

<*y- -z^pM)

Scott S. Harris, Clerk
#### In the Matter of James K., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent on the ground that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree. The petition alleged that respondent recklessly engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person by placing Drano on the surface of a slide in an elementary school playground. The court found that respondent did not place the Drano on the slide but that respondent was reckless in leaving the Drano on the slide. Because there was no allegation in the petition that respondent was reckless in failing to remove the Drano from the slide, it was error for the court to rely on such conduct (Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [h]). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.—Juvenile Delinquency.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
1 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Vermont Unit Docket No. 86-6-14 Vtec

Mahan Conditional Use Application JUDGMENT ORDER 

The matter before the Court involves an application by Martha Mahan (Applicant) to 

convert a pre-existing, nonconforming commercial structure (the Structure) at 118 South Main 

Street in the Town of Northfield, Vermont (the Property) into offices for real estate 

management. The Town of Northfield Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) denied the permit by 

decision dated May 22, 2014. Applicant appealed that decision to this Court and filed a 

Statement of Questions containing three questions. Both Applicant and neighboring 

landowners William P. Mayo, Mayo Properties, LLP, Michael C. Curtis, and Darlene R. Goodrich 

(the Neighbors) moved for summary judgment on Applicant’s Question 1. The Town of 

Northfield (Town) filed a memorandum in opposition to Applicant’s motion for summary 

judgment and in support of the Neighbors’ motion for summary judgment. Ms. Mahan is 

represented by Christopher Roy, Esq. Neighbors are represented by L. Brooke Dingledine, Esq. 

The Town is represented by David W. Rugh, Esq. 

Applicant’s Question 1 asks whether the ZBA conclusively determined that the 

Structure’s nonconforming use had been abandoned for a period greater than 12 months, as 

established under Bylaw § 4.06(B)(1), and whether the ZBA had issued a final decision on 

Applicant’s October 1, 2013 application. Because the ZBA’s minutes on the October 24 hearing, 

approved by the ZBA, serve as the final record of decision in the matter, Applicant’s failure to 

appeal the ZBA’s decision binds her to the decision and precludes her from contesting the 

decision or provisions therein. This includes the ZBA’s conclusion that the Structure’s 

nonconforming use has been abandoned. For this reason, we DENY Ms. Mahan’s motion for 

summary judgment as to Question 1. 
2 

 Although the Neighbors failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to a judgment as a 

matter of law, in our February 19, 2015 decision we notified the parties of our intent to grant 

summary judgment on Question 1 in the Neighbor’s favor pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56(f)(2) on the 

alternate grounds argued by the Town. Also based on the finality of the ZBA’s decision, we 

notified the parties of our intent to grant summary judgment on Questions 2 and 3 in the 

Neighbor’s favor pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56(f)(3). The parties did not file in response to our 

February 19, 2015 decision. For the reasons set forth in our February 19 decision, we GRANT

summary judgment in the Neighbor’s favor on Questions 1, 2, and 3. The Town of Northfield 

Zoning Board of Adjustment’s denial is therefore AFFIRMED. 

This completes the current proceedings before the Court. 

Electronically signed on April 08, 2015 at 04:19 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

_________________________________________ 

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge 

Superior Court, Environmental Division
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00250-CR

ESTEBAN SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1436325

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

Appellant entered a guilty plea to retaliation. In accordance with the terms of 

a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on 

February 12, 2015, to confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 
2

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.

Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 12.1   NSTAR Electric Company Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges Year Ended December 31, 2007 (in thousands)   Net income from continuing operations$216,502Less: equity income from investees1,495Plus: distributed income of equity investees1,637Income taxes135,260Fixed charges (including securitization certificates)114,941Total$466,845Interest expense (1)$107,915Interest component of rentals (estimated as one-third of rental expense)7,026Total$114,941Ratio of earnings to fixed charges4.06  (1)Interest income, net recorded under FIN 48 is excluded from Interest expense for purposes of this ratio.    Exhibit 12.2   NSTAR Electric Company Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements Year Ended December 31, 2007 (in thousands)    Net income from continuing operations (before preferred stock dividend)$216,502Less: equity income from investees1,495Plus: distributed income of equity investees1,637Income taxes135,260Fixed charges (including securitization certificates)114,941Total$466,845Interest expense (1)$107,915Interest component of rentals (estimated as one-third of rental expense)7,026Subtotal114,941Preferred stock dividend requirements3,185Total$118,126Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements3.95  (1)Interest income, net recorded under FIN 48 is excluded from Interest expense for purposes of this ratio.
Order filed, May 16, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00218-CR

____________

DANIEL MICAH VERMILYEA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1335846

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 07, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Judy Fox and Marcia Barnett, the court reporters, to file the 

record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2019 - Quarter 3

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, GREAT NORTHERN BAG-50 KG 1,990 $2,171,062.70 $1,090.99

BEANS, PEA BAG-50 KG 7,090 $6,335,799.50 $893.62

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 850 $571,158.00 $671.95

BEANS, SMALL RED BAG-50 KG 180 $158,558.40 $880.88

CORN, YELLOW BAG-50 KG 250 $68,487.50 $273.95

CORNMEAL BAG-HP-25 KG 12,690 $5,578,089.90 $439.57

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 7,220 $4,840,876.30 $670.48

FLOUR, ALL PURPOSE BAG-25 KG 2,270 $1,108,486.40 $488.32

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 5,190 $2,298,677.30 $442.91

OIL, SOYBEAN, CRUDE, DEGUMMED BULK 14,000 $9,086,000.00 $649.00

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 470 $510,362.45 $1,085.78

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 18,660 $20,892,222.61 $1,119.61

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 90 $47,309.40 $525.66

PEAS, GREEN, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 770 $356,640.90 $463.17

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 9,700 $3,879,047.00 $399.90

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 270 $118,395.00 $438.50

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 1,830 $744,527.70 $406.85

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 4,930 $2,268,939.70 $460.23

RICE, 5/20 MG, W-MLD, PRBL BAG-50 KG 840 $671,949.60 $799.94

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 2,060 $493,225.80 $239.43

SORGHUM BULK 21,000 $3,844,440.00 $183.07

SOYBEAN MEAL BULK 27,500 $10,642,500.00 $387.00

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 53,290 $11,108,320.10 $208.45

WHEAT, SOFT WHITE BULK 116,800 $26,450,805.40 $226.46

Grand Total 309,940 $114,245,881.66

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 1,041,000 $410,070.00 $0.3939
Exhibit
      No. 32(e)


CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Florida Power Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      William Habermeyer, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)           the Report fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.










/s/
                H. William Habermeyer, Jr.H.
              William Habermeyer, Jr.President
              and Chief Executive OfficerMarch
              10, 2006