alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6131

SCOTLAND EUGENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH; LEWIS STEWART, Warden; DONNA HANSEN, Captain; DARRYL PUGH, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 474-AMD) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scotland E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Scotland E. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Kavanaugh , No. CA-01-474-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-9006 IN RE: VINCENT F. ZARRILLI VINCENT F. ZARRILLI, Debtor, Appellant,

v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Creditor, Appellee, DOREEN B. SOLOMON; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT [Hon. Joan N. Feeney, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge ]

Before Torruella, Circuit Judge , Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge , and Lipez, Circuit Judge .Vincent F. Zarrilli on brief pro se.

AnnS. DuRoss , Assistant General Counsel, ColleenJ. Boles , Senior Counsel, and JaclynC. Taner , Counsel, on brief for appellee Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
JUNE 28, 2001-3- Per Curiam . In this appeal, pro se appellant Vincent F. Zarrilli appeals from a decision by the BankruptcyAppellate Panel ("BAP") affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of certain motions he filed in two bankruptcy proceedings. In its decision, the BAP concluded that the doctrine of res judicata barred Zarrilli's claims. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the BAP in its decision dated April 19, 2000.

Inthe present appeal, Zarrilli disputes the BAP's ruling in only one pertinent respect. He suggests that rulings bythis court ina prior appeal were not decisions "onthe merits" for res judicata purposes because the rulings failed to adequately explain the court's adverse decision. We find this claim meritless. The rulings in questiondid explain the decision reached by the court, and, in anyevent, a court's failure to explain a decision does not mean that the decision is not "on the merits." See C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, 18 Fed. Prac & Proc. § 4435, at 348 (2001 Supp.) ("Finally, it should be clear that a decision may be 'on the merits' even though it is reached without opinion or other explanation.") (citations omitted).-4- Affirmed .
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350
Certifications



I am the Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer of EZJR, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate
in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended December 31, 2011 and filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q’).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of EZJR, Inc. (the “Company”)
certifies to his knowledge that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2011 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                                   





|/s/   T J Jesky                                                
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|T J Jesky                                                      
|Principal Executive Officer
        Principal Financial Officer
|                                                               
|February 2, 2012                                               
|Date
#### Groling, Appellant, vs. Goltz and another, Respondents.*

*September 7*

October *5, 1954.*

*391For the appellant there were briefs and oral argument by *Kenneth E. Worthing*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondents there was a brief by *George A. Hartman, Robert G. Hartman, Leo C. Hartman,*and *George A. Hartman, Jr.,*all of Juneau, and oral argument by *George A. Hartman.*

*

 Motion for rehearing denied, with $25 costs, on January 11, 1955.

Gehl, J.

The collision occurred on October 17, 1951, at the intersection of Highways I and S in Dodge county. Plaintiff was driving south on I, an arterial highway. Goltz was approaching the intersection driving east on S. There was testimony that the cars came together in the southeast quadrant of the intersection. The jury might have determined from the testimony that the cars reached the intersection at approximately the same time or that one or the other of them reached it first. Plaintiff was found guilty of causal negligence with respect to yielding the right of way and as to management and control.

Several grounds are assigned as constituting error requiring a new trial. The court instructed the jury as follows:

> “You are further instructed that if at the time of the accident you find that the defendant did in fact stop his car at the intersection and entered the intersection first or at approximately the same time as the plaintiff, that being on the right of the plaintiff such defendant had the right of way, and the plaintiff had the duty to yield the right of way to the defendant.”

The charge was erroneous and prejudicial. *Vogel v. Vetting,*265 Wis. 19, 60 N. W. (2d) 399; *Kraskey v. Johnson,*266 Wis. 201, 63 N. W. (2d) 112. (In fairness to the trial judge it should be noted that this action was tried before the decisions in these cases were announced.)

Counsel for defendants upon cross-examination asked plaintiff, against objection, whether his driver’s license had been suspended after the accident. The objection was over*392ruled.- and plaintiff was permitted to testify that it had been. Whether or not plaintiff had a license was immaterial in this case. *Derr v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.*163 Wis. 234, 157 N. W. 753.

The questions put to one of' plaintiff’s witnesses as to her. relationship to the plaintiff were improper. It had nothing to do with the issues of the case and the questions obviously could have been asked for but one purpose: To prejudice the jury against plaintiff. The questions were not objected to and if this were the only error appearing it would not suffice to require a new trial. But it is a part of an accumulation of the several incidents to which we have referred and which do require that there be a retrial.

Plaintiff contends, also, that the award of damages is so grossly inadequate as to indicate perverseness. Since- there must be a new trial we consider it advisable not to discuss that contention. *.*

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause- remanded with directions to grant a new trial.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Robert D. Koncerak, the Chief Financial Officer of Touchmark
Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1.        The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  November
      16, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Robert D. KoncerakRobert
      D. KoncerakChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
HVAC

MOTORS

DIRECT CURRENT

(DC) MOTORS

U FRAME

MOTORS

BRAKE VECTOR

DUTY

INVERTER

DUTY THREE PHASE

MULTI-SPEED C-FACE SINGLE &

THREE PHASE

EXPLOSION

PROOF

SEVERE

DUTY THREE PHASE

GEN. PURPOSE

SINGLE PHASE

GEN. PURPOSE

www.emersonmotors.com 5 ®

APPLICATIONS:

Designed for commercial fans and blowers, tools, conveyors, pumps and general industrial equipment.

205

FEATURES:

* Reversible Rotation

* C Face Mount

* Continuous Duty

* F1 Assembly

* 40C Ambient Rated

* Ball Bearing

* No Thermal Protection

RPM

Voltage List

Catalog

Frame Number

"C" Dim.

(inches)

Multiplier

Symbol

Ship Wt

HP (lbs) Notes

Single Speed

Full Load 

SF Amps

1/12 1200 115 56CZ D0112B3NZC $134 DS-3FMP 1.4 10.3 15 2.4 25

900 115 56CZ D0112B4NZCR $194 DS-3FMP 1.4 11.5 24 3.1 25

1/8 1200 115 56CZ D18B3ZC $147 DS-3FMP 1.4 10.8 16 3.9 25

900 115 56CZ D18B4NZCR $238 DS-3FMP 1.4 11.3 21 6.3 25

1/6 1800 115 56CZ D16B2NZCR $108 DS-3FMP 1.35 9.6 12 3.5 25

1200 115 56CZ D16B3NZCR $165 DS-3FMP 1.35 10.8 16 4.4 25

900 115 56CZ D16B4NZCR $267 DS-3FMP 1.35 12.0 29 6.9 25

1/4 1800 115 56CZ D14B2NZCR $123 DS-3FMP 1.35 9.6 14 5.1 25

1200 115 56CZ D14B3NZC $191 DS-3FMP 1.35 10.0 24 5.4 25

1/3 1800 115 56CZ D13B2NZCR $138 DS-3FMP 1.35 10.1 15 6.6 25

1200 115 56CZ D13B3NZC $235 DS-3FMP 1.35 10.5 23 7.4 25

1/2 1800 115 56CZ D12B2NZC $152 DS-3FMP 1.25 10.1 21 8.6 25

1200 115 56CZ D12B3NZC $267 DS-3FMP 1.25 11.0 26 10.3 25

RPM/RPM-Low 

(# Wdgs) Voltage List

Catalog

Frame Number

"C" Dim.

(inches)

Multiplier

Symbol

Ship Wt

 HP (HP-Low) (lbs) Notes

Two Speed

Full Load 

SF Amps

1/6 (1/15) 1200/900 (2) 115 56CZ D16B34NZCR $234 DS-3FMP 1.35 12.1 27 3.6-2.7 25

1/4 (1/12) 1800/1200 (2) 115 56CZ D14B10NZCR $160 DS-3FMP 1.35 10.6 17 4.6/2.4 25

1/4 (1/10) 1200/900 (2) 115 56CZ D14B34NZCR $285 DS-3FMP 1.35 12.1 28 4.9/3.3 25

1/3 (1/9) 1800/1200 (2) 115 56CZ D13B10NZCR $200 DS-3FMP 1.35 11.2 20 5.8/4.1 25

1/2 (1/6) 1800/1200 (2) 115 56CZ D12B10NZC $235 DS-3FMP 1.25 11.0 22 8.2/4.1 25

Note 25 Non-protected

General Purpose Single Phase

Open Dripproof (ODP) C Face Mount, Split Phase

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 30
EXHIBIT 32.1 
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO
 PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
 UNITED STATES CODE)
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Progressive Training, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2009 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Buddy Young, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 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.
 
 
 Dated:  September 7, 2010

By:/s/ Buddy YoungBUDDY YOUNG, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
#### City of Lake Geneva, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Walworth County and others, Defendants: Town of Lyons, Defendant and Appellant.

*January 10*—

March *6, 1951.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Rusicka & Fulton*of Burlington, and oral argument by *Robert M. Ftdton.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *John G. Mc-Collow,*city attorney, and *Hugh A. Burdick*of counsel, both of Lake Geneva, and oral argument by *Mr. McCollow.*

Martin, J.

The members of the court are equally divided upon this appeal. Mr. Chief Justice Fritz, Mr. Justice Fairchild, and Mr. Justice Hughes are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Broadfoot, *496Mr. Justice Brown, and the writer are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

Under the rule, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Gehl, J., took no part.
## / 35/-15-

_ im Couci_o£_Cci.w,_iAov.\ ApptMls. RECE1VEDIN 

### COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

### KOV 12 2015 Jl'JtzJA- ff* 

## 8iS^L4c.^i^ PuVAic P^fi/vif^ A-PC'Cd n£ Uhjo ~{ZyLc>$ Q\ o Gcc^l<. j.*yJ •Arp .T~M..r.. .. lp.<^t_f^_voV\cXi It) r.'/e flh<- fg.Tifi&n £ey_„TL_£cc__aja.c*/j Es_.\j.u f i-OjO • ~"Da.c,_- ^_3e.i_-ti_LI—llcc<,_k_cC_li>—2oJjS__jo fcJi_fi«- . .-^ . , ,—,v. x_ Iw. „;_c/.g._uo.a.c,./Cv S.OilJ_fcOo.w ho-CO o^ ci "I Ue^v.11_ yOo o>.ffon«7'1 ]aj&CCuu>J_, M.c<\).C_IO.Or^oj^.ti/_4^—sL.-tW-J.-j OB« -_. f^frvfe e^ |t--ti-</ f° fU Foblic. _De,ff^ J_e.c 

### -_:—tU_La.v^_Q-££,T.c^e. of T\.y&.^_gx.6_j2,f.e..guj^_(.a&A-L.-A3ZQ_r.ts)C <£S.£.t.*.&.. 

### ib/_l4.e4.p_S l.i-U—lift*—oao.-t:i.6..Q to_—ikut__D.L&-C fg-X1&ftcu^—^y-ufcua-An.c/ 5lnocdi^ll*,_d_J___j_^ kc_«.—lci*j.y..e.f:—9.v3_d JT loo.<^_L_>_r__i_-_..a ,«2.Cu£ojC?_ -•Sic IM—PO L__<6>=<_<-- ! M, Klaoo- -_ ilje—ck_j>i.tf-T-i".o.o L_____i_t__e S" ">"o ook&ftA 'i-j- i/u&, •T 

### Co.aXA.r.a La*- «^k_l&c»—i_£—y.o:U_Cc<.w fiJettS 1 o/o,^4 <wfc. <s, Qi'5 crc-ii'.a^a^. -$*^____:__cheLU^_=^^ r 

### .pi.-tA_J.t-cl—cr-u-U-iw—0,a—"^^—_£--«-£fe.-' c]*x/j__s.£__c_ji___-tfe^ 

### ij_*j^.f.c,_^—«k^_/ui|—t.c,iUx£i.l—L&J_J.„5_Si.J.v.i.i-t i>j \(•li.oof rvU. fc^tf[ll^- JElilvj_0-t.atl—T»JJ—f*.-c_—_-L&_d iki-S •C?s,i.c_.|Lc^J.(Ao„JIZ_c[;J1J.If)_-f___^. ^_lAdc^_C^U:c.Co.c_W-LL;la_i'i_;_i^—X__loa->-U oi____{*-.a_____t^e.u-L3 o_



## n.eu^r—j-J_-_k-L-^-jJb_j—__±U—teJ^etj_cWj*.c_oJ: ducwwS.-p^U/J.c. UleyBb_f_. l-AA*vA.r-<a-Ceu«.l:s %—i_iti>—i^>-Lj—-jrU-y fccum-a i-ke__yojJJ-^.__j______^ 

### ^H-kcvJ A-Iy-CCkIw pi^J-ud_£|._U_L^_A—.T-L._4;cJi>__._^Jo.to Awe /Opklie j)tA-»ef^r ^l£^-!___ftiac>w>- 

## J^_J_JxWiljL_jC__lA .-foY tU__iai&_dii_qi. foli. IUC fro/v. fU loe^iioUa _-Uk_

### JNJt—vO-tLt <a.a.'wv-ei—lb l-o^.C_iU_C_dt__Si)__C_U—_\i_J:l__3LJ_k___1 i t fit-««j__--.it"1—uj-"-"•—3 7 u 'Jul'

. > f us, M. c^ik.--0--J3-«-et—'— , •; I,.

_i-l—

._-...
#### Virginia J. Sims *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Charles L. Sims, executor, *et al.,*defendants in error.

A bill in equity must show that the defendant, against whom substantial relief is prayed, is a resident of the county in which it is filed, otherwise the Court has no jurisdiction.

Equity. Jurisdiction. Venue. Before Judge Buohanan. Troup Superior Court. May Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

B. H. Bigham, for plaintiffs in error.

T. H. Whitaker ; Ferrell, Longley *&*Dozier, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This Was a bill filed by the complainants against the defendants, in the county of Troup, praying for relief and an injunction. It is alleged in complainants’ bill that Roberts, against whom the relief is prayed, is of Cobb county, but does not allege that he resides in that county. There is no allegation that Sims, the other defendant, resides in the county of Troup, in which the suit was commenced, or that he is of *573that county. The only mention made in the complainants’ bill, as fo his residence, is in the prayer for subpoena, in •which the complainants pray that said Charles T. Sims, as executor of Wiley H. Sims, “of said county,” be required to appear, etc.; but whether that refers to Troup county or to Cobb county, it is not apparent, as both counties ai’e mentioned in the preceding part of the bill. There was a general demurrer to the bill for want of jurisdiction of the Court in Troup county, which demurrer was sustained, and the complainants excepted. Assuming that the allegations in the complainants’ bill are sufficient as to the residence of Charles T. Sims, the executor, in Troup county, so as to give to the Superior Court of that county jurisdiction as to him, still, there is no allegation in the bill as to the aets and conduct of Wiley H. Sims, his testator, which would authorize the Court to decree any substantial relief against Charles T. Sims, his executor. The case made by the bill is against Roberts, and the substantial relief prayed on the allegations contained therein, is against him who resides in Cobb county, and there was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Troup county as to him, in view of the allegations contained in the complainants’ bill.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
___________ No. 95-3095

___________ Cloverleaf Properties, Inc., * now Leonard O'Brien, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. McDonald's Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 1996 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
In 1973, a McDonald's Corporation franchisee leased property in St. Cha rles, Missouri, from Cloverleaf Properties, Inc., to operate a McDonald's restaurant . The twenty-year lease gave the lessee options (i) to extend the lease for four five-year extension periods, at escalatin g rents; and (ii) to purchase the property for $235,000 "after exten[s]ion of initial term of this lease or any exten[s]ion thereafter." The origina l parties to the lease later assigned the lessee's interest to McDonald's an d the lessor's interest to Leonard O'Brien, Cloverleaf's owner.

At the e nd of the initial twenty-year term, McDonald's gave notic e it wa s exercising the option to purchase. O'Brien then commenced thi s action in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the option t o purchase may not be exercised until the end of

### The HONORABLE JEAN C. HAMILTON, Chief Judge of the Unite d 1 

### States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- the first five-year lease extension period. Aft er McDonald's removed, the district court held that the lease agreement is ambiguous concerning when 1 the option to purchase may be exercised and heard parol evidence on that question at a bench trial. The court then credited the testimony of the lease negotiator for McDonald's, found that the parties intended "to gran t McDona ld's the option to purchase the property immediately after th e expir ation of the initial [twenty-year] term," and entered judgmen t affording McDonald's declaratory and specific performance relief.

On appea l, O'Brien argues that the district court erred in holdin g the lease agreement ambiguous and in admitting parol evidence as to th e parties' intent in providing a purchase option. Instead, the court should have held that the lease grants McDonald's an option to purchase only afte r the expiration of the first five-year lease extension period. Afte r carefully reviewing the record and considering t he parties' contentions on appeal, we conclude t hat the district court correctly held that the lease agreement is ambiguous on the question at issue -- whether "after extensio n of the initial period " means after the start of, or after the end of, the fir st five-year lease extension period. Thus, the court properly hear d paro l evidence on this issue, and its findings of fact regarding th e parties' intent are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dollarama Group Holdings L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 1, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Larry Rossy, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the general partner of the Partnership, Dollarama Group GP Inc., certify that to my knowledge: 

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Partnership. 

Date: December 10, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James  DiLorenzo,  the Principal  Financial and Accounting  Officer of Cedric
Kushner Promotions,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m or
78o(d)); and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Cedric  Kushner  Promotions,  Inc.  and will be  retained by Cedric
Kushner Promotions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


Dated: May 13, 2005


                                     /s/ James DiLorenzo
                                     ----------------
                                     Name: James DiLorenzo
                                     Title: Principal Financial and Accounting
                                     Officer