alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SAN ANTONIO AQUARIUM, LLC d/b/a §

SAN ANTONIO AQUARIUM, §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00646

§

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE §

COMPANY, §

§

 Defendant. §

JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

Plaintiff San Antonio Aquarium, LLC d/b/a San Antonio Aquarium (“San Antonio 

Aquarium”) and Defendant Atain Specialty Insurance Company (“Atain”) submit this Joint 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Report in accordance with Local Rule CV-88. 

Settlement Negotiations

To date, the parties have not engaged in settlement negotiations as this matter was abated 

by agreement of the parties and order of the Court pending inspection of Plaintiff’s premises. 

Hunter M. Klein is responsible for negotiating on behalf of San Antonio Aquarium. 

Michael D. Feiler is responsible for negotiating on behalf of Atain. 

Mediation

After sufficient discovery is completed in this case, the parties believe mediation may be 

appropriate. The parties are working toward selecting an agreed-upon mediator. The parties will 

Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 16 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 3
JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT Page 2

advise the Court once a mediator is chosen, or upon impasse if the parties cannot reach an 

agreement. 

Respectfully submitted,

GREEN KLEIN & WOOD

By:/s/ Hunter M. Klein

HUNTER M. KLEIN

State Bar No. 24082117

ROBERT D. GREEN

State Bar No. 08368025

440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1900

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 654-9222 – Telephone 

(713) 654-2155 – Fax 

green@greentriallaw.com

klein@greentriallaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

/s/ Michael D. Feiler

MICHAEL D. FEILER

State Bar No. 24055475

mfeiler@qslwm.com

MATT R. PICKELMAN

State Bar No. 24013328

mpickelman@qslwm.com

QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS,

WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone) 

(214) 871-2111 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY

Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 16 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 3
JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served upon 

all counsel of record in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 9th day of 

February 2021. 

 /s/ Michael D. Feiler

MICHAEL D. FEILER

Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 16 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 3
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00069

- CV

IN RE LANDSTAR RANGER, INC. , Appellant

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 O R D E R

On August 4 , 20 2 1
, L andstar Ranger, Inc. (Relator)
, filed a motion for emergency relief
pending a decision by this Court on its petition for a writ of mandamus

. The motion for
emergency relief ask s this Court t o stay the trial co urt’s J u ly 2 2 , 2021, discovery order requiring
it to present certain witnesses for oral and videotaped deposition this week and next week.
After reviewing R elator ’s motion for emergency relief
, this Court is of the opinion that
the temporary relief re qu ested should be granted and that the depositio ns scheduled for August 5,

6, 9, 11, and 13 should be stayed pending the ruling of this Court on R elator ’s mandamus
petition.

T herefore, the depositions of (1) Cody Wyrick
, noticed for August 5, (2) Bill At er , noticed for August 6, (3) Shannon Burgess
, n oticed for August 9, (4) Lance Phy
, noticed for

August 11, and (5) Hans Hitzeman
, noticed for August 13
, are hereby stayed pending the ruling

of this Court on the petition for a writ of mandamus.

IT IS SO OR DERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 4 , 20 2 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8051

In Re: WILLIAM STEWART MALONE, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CA-95-541-AM)

Submitted: January 9, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Stewart Malone, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Stewart Malone, a federal prisoner, petitions this

court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(1988). This court will not entertain a § 2241 petition unless a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion is "inadequate [or] ineffective to test

the legality of a person's detention." Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S.

372, 381 (1977). The petitioner bears the burden of showing the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion. McGhee v. Hanberry,

604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979).

Malone makes no showing that § 2255 provides an inadequate

remedy. Although he has brought a prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion,

this fact alone does not establish that the remedy is inadequate.

Id. In his § 2241 petition, Malone makes only conclusory allegations that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his guilty

plea and that counsel was ineffective in failing to pursue allegedly exculpatory evidence. Finally, Malone's complaint of district

court delay in ruling on his § 2255 motion is moot, since the

district court denied the motion. United States v. Malone, Nos. CR93-312-A; CA-94-1146-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 1995), aff'd No. 95-6271

(4th Cir. Dec. 20, 1995) (unpublished).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
----

----

III Oznámení

Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky

----

VYHLÁŠENÍ VÝBĚROVÉHO ŘÍZENÍ PRO EVROPSKOU AGENTURU PRO LÉČIVÉ PŘÍPRAVKY (LONDÝN)

(2006/C 84 A/01)

Agentura odpovídá za koordinaci hodnocení a dohledu nad humánními a veterinárními léčivými přípravky v Evropské unii (viz nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 726/2004 ze dne 31. března 2004, Úř. věst. L 136, 30.4.2004, s. 1). Agentura byla založena v lednu 1995. Udržuje řadu těsných kontaktů s Evropskou komisí, 25 členskými státy EU, zeměmi EHP-ESVO a s mnoha dalšími subjekty ve státním i soukromém sektoru.

Další informace o agentuře a o její činnosti jsou snadno dostupné na internetu; adresa našich internetových stránek je http://www.emea.eu.int.

Evropská agentura pro léčivé přípravky vyhlašuje výběrová řízení se záměrem připravit seznam uchazečů o zaměstnání způsobilých zastávat následující funkční místa:

Vybraní kandidáti budou zařazeni na seznam uchazečů způsobilých pro zaměstnání. V závislosti na rozpočtové situaci jim může být nabídnuta pracovní smlouva na dobu pěti let s možností prodloužení v souladu s pracovním řádem ostatních zaměstnanců Evropských společenství (Úř. věst. L 56, 4.3.1968).

Místem zaměstnání bude Londýn.

Uchazeči musí být státními příslušníky členského státu Evropských společenství nebo Islandu, Norska či Lichtenštejnska, přičemž musí splňovat podmínku plnoprávného občanství.

Úplný seznam podmínek, popis pracovní náplně a formulář žádosti lze stáhnout z internetových stránek EMEA na adrese http://www.emea.eu.int/. Formulář musí být řádně podepsán a datován. Spolu s veškerými požadovanými dokumenty v příloze musí být zaslán nejpozději do 19. května 2006 (rozhoduje datum poštovního razítka) na následující adresu:EMEA – Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, Londýn E14 4HB, Spojené království (tel.: (44-207) 418 84 00, fax: (44-207) 418 84 16).

Úřední věstník již nebude na mailové seznamy zasílán automaticky. Pokud chcete dostávat oznámení o zveřejnění, zaregistrujte se on-line na adrese http://www.emea.eu.int „Online Mailing Service“.

----
* 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. 06-51359

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GILBERTO MADRILES-GUZMAN, also known as Gilberto M Guzman

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-355-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilberto Madriles-Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to possess with intentto distribute cocaine and possession with intent

to distribute cocaine. Madriles-Guzman argues that his retained attorney

performed ineffectively at trial and at sentencing and that the district court

plainly erred during voir dire by commenting on the quantity of drugs involved

in the offense. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51359

2

A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04

(2003). We decline to address the claims of ineffective counsel raised in this case

because there has been no opportunity to develop the record as to the merits of

the claims. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). The district court’s comments during voir dire

were not plainly erroneous. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 572-73

(5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0471

SAT Date: 6/7/2013

Print Date: 7/2/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; ; Hyd Pdt negl

Keywords:

 Keywords: MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM; ONCO

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0471

FATE: 

Solid

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis half-life = hr

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > mo
Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes as the neat material, poor all 

routes for the low molecular weight fractions if in solution (pchem); 

expected to react, especially in the lung. Concern oncogenicity (inhalation only), mutagenicity 

based on ; respiratory and dermal sensitization and lung and mucous membrane 

irritation based on the .

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions based on SARs for nonionic polymers for the 

hydrolysis products; Ecotox chemical class: 

S = reacts with water at 20 C (P); pH 7; hardness <150.0 mg/L as 

CaCO3; ECs based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs nonionic polymers

SAR Class polymer-nonionic

Ecotox Category Nonionic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
EXHIBIT 1

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 31-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 1

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 31-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 2 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 2

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 31-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 3 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 3

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 31-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 99.1**

 
| ****                     |
|--------------------------|
|  Sallie  Mae, Inc.  |
|  12061 Bluemont Way |
|  Reston,VA 20190    |

 

 

**Annual Officer Certificate**

** **

**SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-2**

 

Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Administration Agreement (the“Agreement”) and Section 3.9 of the Trust Indenture (“the Indenture”), we, theundersigned, hereby certify that (I) a review has been made of the activitiesand performance of the Servicer and Administrator from January 1, 2005 throughDecember 31, 2005, and (II) to the best of our knowledge, the Servicer and Administratorhave fulfilled their obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.Additionally, pursuant to Section 11.1(b) (v) of the Indenture, alldispositions of collateral that occurred during the above period were in theordinary course of the issuer’s business and the proceeds thereof were appliedin accordance with the basic documents.

 

 

March 27, 2006

 

 
| /s/ TED A. MORRIS  |   | /s/ J. LANCE FRANKE |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
| Authorized Officer |   | Authorized Officer  |

 

----
Exhibit 31

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Tommy Harris, Senior Vice President of CitiMortgage Inc., certify that:


1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
 periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Citigroup
Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., Series 2005-1

2.      Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
 whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
 state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.      Based upon my knowledge, the servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement is included in these reports;

4.      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
 under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance review required under the pooling and
servicing agreements, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5.      The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
 in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
 or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
 agreement that is included in these reports;

6.      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
 information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., GMAC Mortgage Corporation, and affiliated party
CitiMortgage, Inc.




Date: March 22, 2006


_______/S/_________
Name:  Tommy Harris

Title:  Master Servicing Division
          Senior Vice President
Kempff Communications Company
                       3301 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 1407
                                 Tampa, FL 33629
                                 (813) 258-3433
                               Fax (813) 902-1360



August 13, 2001


Memo to:  Don Boyd
          Small Town Radio, Inc.

From:     Ron Kempff
          KCC

Subject: WDGR Radio Broker Commission



This Memo will confirm the Agreement between Small Town Radio, Inc. and Kempff
Communications Company, whereby Small Town Radio, Inc. agrees to pay Kempff
Communications Company a broker commission of $25,000.00 upon the closing of the
Small Town Radio, Inc. purchase of WDGR Radio.

Kempff Communications Company has acted as the broker for the Buyer, Small Town
Radio, Inc.

Agreed:

/s/ Ron Kempff                                        /s/ Don Boyd
------------------------------------                 ------------------------
Ron Kempff, KCC, Broker                              Don Boyd, STRI, Buyer


August 13, 2001                                      August 13, 2001
EXHIBIT 34

Is Redacted In Its Entirety Due to the 

Confidential Nature of the Document

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-36 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1155** 

I n R e: ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 5:09

- cv - 01547 ; 5:10

- cv - 00982 )

Submitted : March 21, 2011 Decided: April 22, 201 1

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Eugene Brooks , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Eugene Br ooks petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release o r an order for “the Government to show cause why an evidentiary hearing should not be held immediately.” We conclude that Brooks is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Ma ndamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)

. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Brooks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DENIED
#### Freda Green & Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Mark Heydt, Individually and as Executor of Audrey Heydt, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered June 12, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of the same court, entered June 1, 1990, is dismissed, without costs, in view of the entry of final judgment.

Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, was granted "exclusive and irrevocable right and authority” to sell the defendant’s cooperative apartment until expiration of the parties’ written agreement on April 30, 1989. Defendant entered into *329a contract for the sale of the property on May 1,1989, one day after the expiration of the brokerage agreement, with purchasers he had himself procured. Despite the fact that the plaintiff admittedly had nothing whatsoever to do with the sale of the subject premises, plaintiff claims an entitlement to a commission based upon plaintiff’s interpretation of General Construction Law § 25 and the defendant’s alleged bad faith under the contract.

The IAS court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging that the term of the exclusive agreement was extended to Monday, May 1, 1989 pursuant to General Construction Law § 25 merely because the expiration of the parties’ agreement, April 30, 1989, fell on a Sunday. As plaintiff concedes, the agreement, which was drafted by the plaintiff, required no "payment of money” or "performance of a condition” warranting such an extension of time under General Construction Law §25 (1) on the expiration date of the parties’ agreement *(see generally, Kulanski v Celia Homes,*7 AD2d 1006).

Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s second cause of action alleging that the defendant had, in bad faith, breached the parties’ agreement by secretly showing the subject premises to the ultimate purchasers thereof. Again, plaintiff concedes that the defendant negotiated in good faith with every prospective purchaser procured by the plaintiff and in no way interfered with the plaintiff’s attempts to perform under the agreement prior to the expiration thereof. Thus, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary and fraud or bad faith on the part of the seller, the broker was not entitled to a commission on a sale negotiated after the term of its employment. *(Bashant v Spinella,*67 AD2d 1100.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5272 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on capers, prepared or preserved 

by vinegar or acetic acid, in containers holding 3.4 kg or less. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, in containers holding 3.4 kg or less. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPERS, PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY VIN4 EGAR OR ACETIC ACID, IN CONTAINERS 

5 HOLDING 3.4 KG OR LESS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.26 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, 

9 in containers holding 3.4 kg or less) is amended by strikVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:41 May 04, 2012 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5272.IH H5272

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5272 IH

1 ing the date in the effective period column and inserting 

2 ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned officers of Standard  Microsystems  Corporation (the Company),  does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2004 of the
Company fully  complies,  in all material  respects,  with the  requirements  of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and  information
contained  in the Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: October 12, 2004               By: /s/ Steven J. Bilodeau
                                      --------------------------
                                            (signature)

                                      Steven J. Bilodeau
                                      Chairman of the Board, President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer



                                      By: /s/ Andrew M. Caggia
                                      ------------------------
                                            (signature)

                                      Andrew M. Caggia
                                      Senior Vice President - Finance
                                      and Chief Financial Officer