alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 22, 2018

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALEX VILLALOBOS, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00593-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ODNEI FR

A ZIER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOHNATHAN AKANO; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17471 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-01656-LJO-M JS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r R odne i Fra z ie r a p pe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds a nd re ta lia tion a ga inst him

for filing a fe de ra l a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. 

# FIL ED FEB 3 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Re

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismi ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); B arre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Fra z ie r’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt c la im be c a use Fra z ie r fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to his alle ge d ne e d for tre atm e nt. Se eFarme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“ [A] prison offic i a l c annot befound lia ble unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt for de ny ing a n inm ate hum ane c onditions of c onfine m e nt unle ss theoffic ia l knows of a nd disre g ards a

n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth[.] ” ); Halle t t v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th C ir. 2002) (de la y of m e dic a l tre atm e nt doe s not c onstitute

de libe rate indiffe re nc e unle s s de la y le d to furthe r injury ); se e also He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (though pro se ple a dings a

re to be libe ra lly c onstrue d, a pla i ntiff m

ust still pre se nt fa c tua l a lle gations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla usiblec la im

for re lie f). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Fra z ie r’ s re ta lia tion c la im be c a use Fra z ie r fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts to show tha t de fe nda nts kne w of or we re m otiva te d by Fra z ie r’ s fe de ra l a c tion file d a ga inst individua ls a t a nothe r prison fa c i lity

y e ars e arlie r. Se eRhode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (e le m e nts of a re ta l iation c la im

in theprison c onte xt).
1 3 - 1 7 4 7 1

2W e re je c t Fra z ie r’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning le a v e to a m e nd to a dd ne w de fe nda nts. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 4 7 1 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29004]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Open Meeting, Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
gives notice that the following meeting will be held:

    Name: Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
    Date of Meeting: November 14, 2000.
    Place: The FEMA Conference Operator in Washington, DC will 
administer the teleconference. Individuals interested in 
participating should call 1-800-320-4330 at the time of the 
teleconference. Callers will be prompted for the conference code, 
#17, and they will then be connected through to the teleconference.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EST.
    Proposed Agenda:
    1. Call to order.
    2. Announcements.
    3. Action on minutes from October 2000 teleconference meeting.
    4. Review Annual and Year 2000 Report draft text.
    5. New business.
    6. Adjournment.
    Status: This meeting is open to the public.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sally P. Magee, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., room 442, Washington, DC 20472, 
telephone (202) 646-8242 or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and 
will be available upon request 30 days after they have been approved by 
the next Technical Mapping Advisory Council meeting in October 2000.

    Dated: November 3, 2000.
Michael K. Buckley,
Director, Technical Services Division, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-29004 Filed 11-09-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 25 PageID 145
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 25 PageID 146
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 25 PageID 147
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 25 PageID 148
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 5 of 25 PageID 149
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 6 of 25 PageID 150
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 7 of 25 PageID 151
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 8 of 25 PageID 152
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 9 of 25 PageID 153
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 10 of 25 PageID 154
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 11 of 25 PageID 155
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 12 of 25 PageID 156
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 13 of 25 PageID 157
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 14 of 25 PageID 158
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 15 of 25 PageID 159
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 16 of 25 PageID 160
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 17 of 25 PageID 161
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 18 of 25 PageID 162
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 19 of 25 PageID 163
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 20 of 25 PageID 164
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 21 of 25 PageID 165
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 22 of 25 PageID 166
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 23 of 25 PageID 167
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 24 of 25 PageID 168
Case 4:22-cv-00154-O Document 14 Filed 04/14/22 Page 25 of 25 PageID 169
#### ALLISON et al. v. VICTORIA BANK & TRUST CO.

No. 10922.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Feb. 5, 1942.

*529Edward S. Boyles, Bennett Lay, and Willard L. Russell, all of Houston, for appellants.

J. V. Vandenberge and Crain, Vanden-berge & Stofer, all of Victoria, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

On February 21, 1940, by opinion that date filed, this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court herein and remanded the cause to the court below, with instructions to retain venue thereof in Harris County. Thereafter on March 21, 1940, appellee’s motion for rehearing was overruled. 138 S.W.2d 151.

Subsequent to such action by this Court, appellee herein applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, to compel this Court to certify to it certain questions in this cause alleged to have arisen from claimed conflicts of decisions. On December 31, 1941, the Supreme Court, Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Monteith, 158 S.W.2d 63, granted appellee’s application for such writ of mandamus, and entered an order directing the issuance of the writ, unless this court should conform its rulings with those of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, on January 28, 1942, the Supreme Court overruled respondents’ motion for rehearing.

The opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court in such mandamus proceeding have been duly certified to this Court, and the issuance and service of the writ of mandamus therein directed have been waived.

Therefore, in accordance with and in conformity to the Supreme Court’s opinion and judgment referred to supra (Victoria Bank & Trust Co., Relator, v. W. E. Monteith, Chief Justice, et al., Respondents, 158 S.W.2d 63), and in compliance with Rule 475, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, it is here now ordered that this Court’s judgment of February 21, 1940, reversing and remanding this cause with instructions, and its subsequent order of March 21, 1940, overruling appellee’s motion for rehearing be and they hereby are in all things set aside and held for naught.

It is further the order of this Court, pursuant to and in conformity with the Supreme Court’s opinion and judgment, referred to supra, that appellee’s motion for rehearing be granted, and that the judgment of the trial court which orders the transfer of the venue of this cause to the district court of Victoria County, Texas, be and the same is here now in all things affirmed.

Motion for rehearing granted, former judgment set aside and judgment affirmed.
#### SHELTON v. STATE.

No. 25519.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery. The penalty assesed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 15 years.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. No complaints of the rulings of the court or other matters of procedure have been brought forward by bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.
Prison. The district court is afforded considerable discretion in imposing a 

sentence, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of 

discretion. Randell v. State,109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). 

Abuse of discretion will be found only when the record shows "prejudice 

resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on 

facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence." Silks v. 

State,92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Appellant does not 

argue that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect 

evidence; therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion. 

Third, appellant contends that her sentence was 

disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the 

sentences imposed on her codefendants, constituting cruel and unusual 

punishment. A sentence that falls within the statutory guidelines is not 

considered cruel and unusual unless the statute is unconstitutional or the 

sentence is "so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock 

the conscience." Blume v. State,112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 

(1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no legal requirement 

that codefendants be sentenced to identical terms. Nobles v. Warden,106 

Nev. 67, 68, 787 P.2d 390, 391 (1990) (emphasizing that "sentencing is an 

individualized process"). 

Appellant does not allege that the relevant statutes are 

unconstitutional, and her sentence falls within the statutory guidelines. 

SeeNRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 205.270(1)(a). The instant offense involved 

appellant taking a wallet, as her codefendants distracted the victim, and 

then backing a vehicle into a bystander as she fled the scene. We conclude 

that the sentence imposed is not unreasonably disproportionate to the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

WIC 
J. 

J. 

3 

offense and therefore does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Steven P. Elliott, District Judge 

Michael V. Roth 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0178

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CRAIG ALLEN MCCREA,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including July 30, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 20 2024

06/20/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0178
#### FITCH v. STATE.

No. 25110.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. *24, 1951.*

No attorney on appeal for appellant:

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the Statp.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of property over the value of $50.00 and sentenced to a term of five years in the state penitentiary. •

*897He asked that his sentence be suspended in the event of a conviction and for a sentence of not more than five years. The jury granted his application and recommended a suspension of sentence, and the court entered such order. However, there is no final order herein, and lacking such, we have no jurisdiction of his appeal. See Bierman v. State, *73*Tex.Cr.R. 284, 164 S.W. 840; Gallier v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 182 S.W. 306; Thomas v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 219 S.W. 1100; Lamkin v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 311, 136 S.W.2d 225; Cisneros v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 123, 179 S.W.2d 313; also Article 779, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
#### WEEMS v. STATE.

No. 26158.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for robbery. The punishment is assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear to be in regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.,
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2017-01-26 13:08:23","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["13","237","77","72","2270","26","449","58","28"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["11","122","72","75","2169","20","461","64","26"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2","581","1","2","405"," 0","18"," 0"," 0"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q1"}
Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 28 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 590
Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 28 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 591
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8867]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Make A Joyful Noise: Renaissance Art and Music at 
Florence Cathedral''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Make A Joyful Noise: Renaissance Art and 
Music at Florence Cathedral,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, 
from on or about October 25, 2014, until on or about January 11, 2015, 
The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan, from on or about 
February 6, 2015, to on or about May 17, 2015, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-21826 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

685 

CAF 11-01129 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF KIM MONTAGUE, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V ORDER

JASON A. BROOKS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

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

IN THE MATTER OF JASON A. BROOKS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

 

KIM MONTAGUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

ELIZABETH CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTAPPELLANT.

CATHARINE VENZON, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERRESPONDENT. 

AYOKA TUCKER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO, FOR NATHAN B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered May 10, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded

respondent-petitioner sole custody of the subject child. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by petitioner-respondent, the attorneys for the parties, and by

the Attorney for the Child on March 12, 2012,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs upon stipulation. 

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, J. Robert Paulson, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Endocardial Solutions, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August  9, 2004 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  | /s/ J. Robert Paulson, Jr. |   |
|                  | Signature |
|                  | Name: J.  Robert Paulson, Jr. |
|                  | Title: Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----