alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2
 
                           ADVANSTAR HOLDINGS, INC.
 
                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 
  This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment"), dated as of December 15, 1998, is
hereby made to the 1996 Stock Option Plan (the "1996 Option Plan") of
Advanstar Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation.
 
    1. Paragraph 4 of the 1996 Option Plan is deleted in its entirety and a
  new paragraph 4 is substituted in its place to read in its entirety as
  follows:
 
    "4. Stock. The stock subject to Options shall be authorized but
    unissued shares of Common Stock of the Company, par value $0.01 per
    share (the "Common Stock"), or shares of Common Stock reacquired by the
    Company in any manner. The aggregate number of shares which may be
    issued pursuant to the Plan is 1,500,000 (adjusted to reflect the 100-
    for-1 stock split effected on May 23, 1997), subject to adjustment as
    provided in Paragraph 13 hereof. If any Option granted under the Plan
    shall expire or shall cease for any reason to be exercisable in whole
    or in part or shall be repurchased by the Company, the shares subject
    to such Option shall again be available for grants of Options under the
    Plan."
 
    2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the 1996 Option Plan shall remain
  in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
 
    3. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
  meanings set forth in the 1996 Option Plan. This Amendment shall be
  construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware
  without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law of such state.
 
  Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on December 15, 1998.
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 99.1









                        IMC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1998-3

                              Officer's Certificate




In connection with the above-referenced trust and pursuant to Section 8.16 of
the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement"), IMC Mortgage Company
(as "Servicer"), hereby confirms the following:

(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1998 and of performance
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement for the calendar year 1998.


                                        IMC Mortgage Company


                                        By:  /s/ Thomas G. Middleton          
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Thomas G. Middleton
                                             President & Chief Operating Officer




                                      -11-
From : "Higgins, Cortney" <C ortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wa yland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, George Faison/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marc Thomas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 11/29/2011 11:24 AM Subject: FW : E.O. 12866 Meeting on Boilers MACT and CISW I Rules Hi all, Attached are the handouts from the meeting this morning. Regards, Cortney

----- Original Appointment ----- From : Echols, Mabel E. Subject: E.O. 128 66 Meeting on Boilers MACT and CIS WI Rules Wh en: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:30 AM - 10:00 AM (UTC - 05:00) Eastern Ti me (US & Canada). Wh ere: Room 10103 NEOB This meeting was requested by Khary Cauthen, API. (See attached file: 2060 - AR13_2011_11_29_API_H andout2.pdf)(See attached file: 2060 - AR13_2011_11_29_API_Handout1.pdf)
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by Chief Financial Officer  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 Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|By: | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery Chief Financial
Officer | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---

QuickLinks
Regulatory Eva luation 

Docket No. FAA- 20/3-0300 Directorate Identifier: 07-AD-63RI 2.0 I /-A/,M- /~ 3-A-D 

..lcld till! work Jwun. paris co.\ I. and 11111/Jher (?( l i.S. re::istercd JII"Oc/uc/., to the lclhh· helm1. W/11.:11 you are 

finished. clic:k 011 !Itt! ·' Updc1fe Fii!lch •· hu11on fcJ £111£01/totical~t:ji/1 in till! tcllafs. 

Update Fi ld ~ 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft. engine. 

(e.g .. Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include 011- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing. (@S85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection for missing 

parts .6 9 

Torque cross bolts .5 9 

Measure extension of .5 latch pins 9 

Inspection of cam 

latches for lip 1.6 9 deformation 

I 

I 

I 

I 

The known number of products in compliance: 'l l,~.r 

Total Costs of compliance fo r U.S. fl eet: $2.4-1 8 

Costs covered under warranty (if kumm) S" • '*I \ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access. (@£85/hour) 

replacement) testing. and close- up) 
~i\ 

(}.II(,. f. 

e~ 

Replacement of 

broken/missing cam 

latch 

Replacement of 

brokcn/m issing latch 

pin 

Replacement of 

brokcn/m issing latch 

pin cross bolt 

HFEC or magnetic 

particle inspection of 

cam latch 

Main cargo door rig 

check and replacement 

of alloy steel cross bolts 

through the latch pins 

with CRES cross bolts 

Inspection of mating 

parts 

.S 

.I ., 

1 ' 

I ·' 

49 

.6 ~ fJ..Jr..tJl 

I "II('~ liM.. 

( I 

Special considerations fo r Economic Analysis (Use this .field /o explain anylhing in 1he Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or mig Itt not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Ordct· 12866: 

~:i'h 

Could the AD be considered a 'significant regulatory acti on ~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT H.egulatory Policies and Pt·ocedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

*Explanation: 

Rcgulatot·y Flex ibility Act: 

YES* 0 NO lZI 

YES* 0 NO~ 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES 0 NO ~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific req uirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* 0 NO ~ 
*Explanation:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-DIAZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-660) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marco Antonio Rodriguez-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until December 10, 1999, for the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Rodriguez-Diaz wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Marco Antonio Rodriguez-Diaz seeks to appeal an order of the district court denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The district court’s order was entered November 19, 1999. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), Rodriguez-Diaz had ten days from entry of that order on the criminal docket to note his appeal. His notice of appeal was dated December 2, 1999, * thirteen days after entry of the order. The appeal periods of Fed. R. App. P. 4 are“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Because Rodriguez-Diaz failed tofile a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50694

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA ADAM CONLAN, also known as Joco,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-451-1

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Adam Conlan appeals the denial of his motion for immediate

release from custody. His motion was based on his having been detained for a

competency evaluation beyond the 45 days permitted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b)

and 4247(b). Conlan has since been found incompetent and detained under

§ 4241(d) for a determination of whether treatment might restore his

competency. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50694 Document: 00512260280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2013
No. 12-50694

The appeal is moot because Conlan is no longer detained under the terms

of § 4247(b) but under a later, unchallenged detention order. We can no longer

provide relief from the expired detention even if it were unlawful under

§ 4247(b). See United States v. Montelongo, 32 F.3d 565, 1994 WL 442366, *1

(5th Cir. July 25, 1994) (dismissing as moot a claim that the defendant was

unlawfully detained for a competency evaluation); see also 5TH CIR. RULE 47.5.3

(“Unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent.”); McLain

v. Beto, 458 F.2d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 1972) (pretermitting the question of whether

interlocutory orders were appealable because the appeal was moot). Conlan fails

to show that there is a case or controversy raising issues that are “real and

substantial and not merely academic or speculative.” Troy State Univ. v. Dickey,

402 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1968). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to

dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

Conlan’s motion to relieve present counsel and to appoint new counsel is

DENIED. 

2

 Case: 12-50694 Document: 00512260280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2013
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§ 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A
for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/  Haig S.
      BagerdjianHaig  S.
      BagerdjianChief
      Executive OfficerSeptember
      28, 2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KULWINDER JIT SINGH PARHAR, AKA 

Kulwinder Singh, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72395 

Agency No. A027-563-285 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Kulwinder Jit Singh Parhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to 

reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72395 

2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Singh Parhar does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge the 

agency’s denial of his motion as untimely and number barred. See Lopez-Vasquez 

v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised 

and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to consider 

Singh Parhar’s unexhausted contentions regarding sua sponte reopening. See 

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring 

exhaustion of claims).

Singh Parhar’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under Pereira 

v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), also fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1986) 

(deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the 

deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (1986) (not requiring the time or 

place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause); 

see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of 

certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes 

by later hearing notice). 

On June 25, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal 

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
1

NO. 12-21-00005-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

A.S.M., A CHILD

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 307TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant, Author J. Manning, Jr., filed a notice of appeal on January 9, 2021. On 

January 11, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain 

the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d)-(e), 

and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 

(service); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)-(e) (contents in civil cases, notice); TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court 

reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notices warned that, unless Appellant 

filed a proper notice of appeal on or before February 10, the appeal would be referred to the 

Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of 

appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s January 11 notices.1

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5, Rule 25.1(d)-(e), and 

Section 51.017(a), the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after 

giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to 

1 Manning is acting pro se; however, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys 

and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair 

advantage over parties represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 

WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2

dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a 

notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered February 26, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 26, 2021

NO. 12-21-00005-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A. S. M., A CHILD

Appeal from the 307th District Court

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001-1995-DR)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### John T. Brown, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Robert M. Patterson, defendant in error.

1. Where, upon a motion for a new trial, it was agreed that the documentary evidence introduced should be used on said motion, and it appears that said evidence was in the clerk’s office, and a copy thereof was not transmitted to this Court as a part of the record, the case will be continued upon a suggestion of the diminution of the record. (R.)

2. The suggestion of a diminution of the record must be made under oath, in writing, on or before the calling of the ease as prescribed by Rule IX. of this Court. This rule will be strictly enforced. (R.)

When this case was called, counsel for plaintiff in error suggested a diminution of the record on account of the absence of a copy of the documentary evidence used on the hearing of a motion for a new trial.

It was objected, on the part of the defendant in error, that such defect could not be cured in the manner proposed.

It appeared that the following agreement was entered into on the hearing of the motion for a new trial:

“We agree to the foregoing brief of the oral evidence, and consent that the documentary evidence may be used on this motion for a new trial.”

Also, that said evidence was in the clerk’s office, it being a bill and answer in an equity cause.

The record was ordered to be completed and the case continued, the Court enunciating the principles contained in the above head-notes.

Hawkins & Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

J. A. Ansley; Richard E. Lyon, for defendant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice; Cancellation of meeting date.

                    The National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     October 1, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-22538 at 89 FR 79968, concerning a meeting of the Advisory Committee for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 30, 2024, at 12 p.m. (ET) is cancelled.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Please contact Crystal Robinson                         *crrobins@nsf.gov*                         or 703-292-8687.                    

Dated: October 16, 2024.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2024-24253 Filed 10-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. FR ANC ISC O R OSALES-HER NANDEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10506

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01958-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Franc isc o R osa le s-He rnande z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd 70-m onth se nte nc e for c o nspira c y to transport a

nd ha rbor ille ga l a lie ns, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii) and (v)(1); a

nd c onspira c y

to c om m it m one y

la unde ring, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED APR 27 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).§ 1956(h). Pursua nt to Ande r

s v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R o sa l e sHe rnande z ’ s c o unse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a

m o tion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c o rd. R osa le s-He rnande z ha s file d a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No a n swe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. R osa le s-He rna

nde z ha s wa ive d the right to a ppe a l his c o nvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc l ose s no a rgua ble issue a s to theva lidity of the wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). Rosa le sHe rnande z ’ s c o nte ntion tha t the gove rnm e nt bre a c he d the ple a a gre e m e nt is not supporte d by the re c ord be c a use R osa le s-He rnande z re c e ive d the thre e -le ve l re duc t ion for a c c e pta

n c e of re sponsibility

tha t he wa s prom ise d. M o re ove r, the distric t c o urt did not provide an unqua lifie d a dvise m e nt tha t R osa le s -He rnande z re ta ine d the right to a

ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Arias-Espinosa , 704 F.3d 616, 618-20 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a c c ordingly dism iss thea

ppe a l. Se eW

atson , 582 F.3d at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 1 0 5 0 6 2
steam_record - Re: 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date. 

Sincerely, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Wood, William H" <wwood@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/9/2010 12:49 PM

Subject: Re: 

Attachments: 20100708161314499.pdf

Page 1 of 2