alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Schumaker and others. In re Town of Rantoul.

*May 21*— *June 20, 1895.*

*Special proceeding to incorporate village: Appealable order: Prohibition.*

1. An order of reference in a proceeding in the circuit court to incorporate a village, being a mere interlocutory order, is not appealable.

2. A writ of prohibition will not be granted against proceedings in the circuit court to incorporate a village, on the ground that the statutes authorizing such proceedings are unconstitutional. The ordinary remedies at law are ample.

Applications for a stay of proceedings and for a writ of prohibition against proceedings in the circuit court for Calumet county: Geo. W. Burnell, Circuit Judge.

*Denied.*

*J. O. Kleist*and *Rubles A.*Cole, for the *Town of Rantoul.*

*J. L. O’Connor, conti'a,.*

*489Winslow, J.

*Schumaker*and others made petition to the circuit court for Calumet county, under the provisions of secs. 854 *et seq.,*R. S., for the incorporation of certain territory as a village. Three fourths of the territory of the proposed village was situated in the town of *Rantoul,*and this town appeared and filed an answer to the petition, raising certain issues thereon, which issues were, by order of the court, referred to Joseph B. Reynolds, Esq., for examination and report thereon. The referee proceeded to take testimony, but before he had concluded his hearing or made his report, and on the 9th of May, 1895, the town of *Rantoul*served notice of appeal from the order of reference; and it now makes a motion in this court for an order staying ali proceedings in the circuit court and before the referee, pending the appeal, and requiring the transmission to this court of all of the original papers in the proceeding. There is one sufficient reason why this motion will not be granted, and that reason is that the order of reference is not an appealable order. The proceeding to incorporate a village is a special proceeding, and not an action. The order of reference is simply an Interlocutory order, and the statute governing appeals from orders in 'special proceedings grants an appeal only from a final order. R. S. sec. 3069, as amended by ch. 212, Laws of 1895.

A motion is also made by the town of *Rantoul*for a writ of prohibition, directed to the circuit judge and to the referee aforesaid, prohibiting them from taking any further proceedings in the matter of the application for incorporation, on the ground that the statutes authorizing the incorporation of villages by the circuit court are unconstitutional because they attempt to confer on the court legislative power. The writ of prohibition is issued only in cases of extreme necessity, and not for grievances which may be redressed by ordinary proceedings at law or in equity. *State ex rel. De Puy v. Evans,*88 Mis. 255. We perceive no ex*490treme necessity in this case, and no reason why the remedies at law are not ample in case an order of incorporation is made by the court below.

*By the*Oourt.— Motions denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00595-CV

Jonathan T. DRUMMOND,

Appellant

v.

Deanna Lynn DRUMMOND,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-09881

Honorable Gloria Saldana, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court signed a final order of divorce on June 20, 2016. Appellant timely filed a 

notice of appeal and post-judgment motions that extended the trial court’s plenary power until 

October 3, 2016. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a, 329b(e); Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., 

Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Tex. 2000). 

On October 3, 2016, the trial court signed an “Order Modifying Decree of Divorce.” 

When the trial court signed the October 3, 2016 order, the appellate deadlines were reset. See

Lane Bank, 10 S.W.3d at 313 (“Rule 329b(h) provides that ‘[i]f a judgment is modified, 

corrected or reformed in any respect’ the appellate timetable runs from the date of the new 

judgment.”). 

Appellant filed a “Second Amended Notice of Appeal” on November 2, 2016; the notice 

of appeal was timely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; Lane Bank, 10 S.W.3d at 313.

On November 9, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal or to extend the time 

to file Appellant’s brief until thirty days after the appellate record is complete. Because the 

appellate timetable runs from October 3, 2016, the appellate record is due on December 2, 2016,

see TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1, and Appellant’s brief is due thirty days after the appellate record is 

complete, see id. R. 38.6(a).

Appellant’s motion is MOOT.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 99.1**
Supplemental PerformanceMeasurements - Average Tangible Assets and AverageTangible Stockholders’ Equity
The information below provides specific definition of non-GAAP measurementsutilized in our overview schedule under the financial summary section of Item2. - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results ofOperations.
  Return on average tangible assets and return on average tangiblestockholders’ equity which represents non-GAAP measures are computed, on anannualized basis, as follows:
  Return on average tangible assets is computed by dividing net income, asreported plus amortization of identifiable intangible assets, net of taxes byaverage total assets less average goodwill and average identifiableintangible assets.
  Return on average tangible stockholders equity is computed by dividing netincome, as reported plus amortization of identifiable intangible assets, netof taxes by average total stockholders’ equity less average goodwill andaverage identifiable intangible assets.                   **Three Months Ended** **Six Months Ended****(dollars in thousands)** **June 30, 2004** **June 30, 2003** **June 30, 2004** **June 30, 2003**Net Income, as Reported $108,999  $96,113  $211,518  $199,652 Add: Amortization of identifiable Intangibles, Net of Taxes  1,252   589   1,770   1,177                  Net Income, as Adjusted $110,251  $96,702  $213,288  $200,829                  Average Total Assets $24,617,030  $22,316,804  $22,829,187  $21,987,979 Less: Average Goodwill  720,988   410,385   565,686   409,408 Less: Average Identifiable Intangible Assets  31,760   15,030   22,084   15,471                  Average Tangible Assets $23,864,282  $21,891,389  $22,241,417  $21,563,100                  Average Stockholders’ Equity $1,912,760  $1,578,706  $1,731,953  $1,563,755 Less: Average Goodwill  720,988   410,385   565,686   409,408 Less: Average Identifiable Intangible Assets  31,760   15,029   22,084   15,471                  Average Tangible Stockholders’ Equity $1,160,012  $1,153,292  $1,144,183  $1,138,876                  Return on Average Tangible Assets  1.86%  1.77%  1.93%  1.88%Return on Average Tangible Stockholders’ Equity  38.23%  33.63%  37.49%  35.56%
45
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
FERROFLUIDICS CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
AND CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         1321000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7074000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    331000
<INVENTORY>                                   15762000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              26288000
<PP&E>                                        17406000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9117000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                39756000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         17947000
<BONDS>                                        5029000
<COMMON>                                      35615000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (19107000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  39756000
<SALES>                                       15011000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              15011000
<CGS>                                         10153000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10153000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3926000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              118000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 814000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    100000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             714000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    714000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
... ,..,., _.._ -

TELEPHONE 

EXECUTIVE 3-IM> 

MOP/4387 

Ulr. vr .F. Friod."118ll,, 

SI ASST, 

N3A, 

NSS, 

3801 Nebraska _!\.venue 1'! .w-• .. fashinll'ton D. C. 

Dear 

•' 

REF ID:A56939 

• 

BRITJSH JOINT SERVICES MISSION 

MAIN NAVY BUILDING 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

2Gth J~uary 1955 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

I enclose herewith copy no. 5 of G.C. & c.s. 

Japanco;e Dirlomatic ::iccti'Jn TI.istory, which you aslmd\f'or 

in your letter of' 2nd DocP,\'T'bAr. I should ba crateful 

if you would be 50 kind ~5 to sign and rctu~n the cnclvsod 

recaint f'orn1. 

\\ 

Er.clrysvro: l volUL~C 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-21-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3
REF ID:A4148471 

r. ~-· . ~-. v 

1 

c \ I I 

! 

I 

1_· __ 

"' ~-. Y1. I ·., /I. I. 

·.--. 

Patent Oft!Ort ~--~ . . . CMet aip1 -~ D!.rec;tor ot ~ :~~ ~948 ,., . . . ,i..,. De~· of ·the ln.J . ~" ~, Eats qK. 

A'rlNa Chist, Legal D1$1on 

(for ~. iawre.- Gla~n) I 

;l· 

l. r~el'0~'°'6 1a m®· to th0 f~t 

. ri. ~ttal sheet., dated 31 ~ 19,45, ~~ ea abtwe• ~ the 

~or, ~ Div:!s~n1 to Intell.1.gmlOa ~ .. A~nt llaJ~_.RtDpl&, -~ --~ of wllich was forwarded to tho ~.securtt.y Aganey, requQBtiJJg ~ '14 pro~ao.ta 

m1rl fialdS ct ~- ~ to Sigm1 Corps·~·- ~ 

b. LiJt;tort dated. 10 Soi:Jtembar 1945, Bf#>Jeali u abav'o; ~,too Chti!.t, A!J.91 Oommurticatio~ Semce (sigml Seauri.V' ~), to tm ~' teau n1~ion. 

Q .. ~r, da~ ).2 Sept-Em'lter ~9J.s,, tP.lbJ~ llfl aboye, trom thG ~ 

D.ivisian; .Of:f'ice r>f the ChW SSpil. at~ to S1g!al &Jcui"ity Ageixv ~. 

. . 

2. Raf~ b and cs d~imd and clarified tho ~d.a ot epecisl. 1atere~. Gf,' 

the Sipl &:Kror!t;y. A~, _ ?19. Arm:f ~.U'it7 Au~, the tmdsJ-stD.:Jdi:l& baUg_ tlill't 

app.licstions for ~tent -~ .11'tt1oD\1onlJ in such ~1elda ~ be. itulvd~tttd, by the 

COmisaioner of Patents to the Joi= A'I'f113•"!laV Patent AWiabJ."7 Boa~'- Elli tbe,t ti. 

t.rrq Seel:lrit,y A~ .,ul.d thareupoZi hs"vG an ~~ to ~ the .W. in the 

interest. of natioml 89C.'Url.t7. 

3.. mi.us it is reilized that e-ctivity in ~cg!c ~cvment ba1J d~ild 

oiJtce th-e cessation Of 'hostilities• it is ~-that on4" n t.ew a1nor oa.nes h8W ~n 

~rd 

~tted-to 

for more· tblln 

the 

a 

A~ 

year• 

Soaurit)' 

It ill• t.hGrefor&9 

Ag'!tt1/q tlm>ugh 

roqumted 

the Joint~ 

that ~ inqu4.1jr 

'Plrtfmt 

be mde, 

~ 

am 

that the Ar"t!l,'/ s~~ AaaU'J:/ be advised ~I" the pOl.iey 1nd.b't.cd in Z'Gfe:reuoe la 

abOVe ~\otlll C'fD':l'Ont. 

FOO TI~ Dll:ml.'TO!l OF INl'ELLmB!IJJl: 

COPI' J'URNISJOO a .\AS-m 

JIAR(lJ) a. &?Fa 

Colm1e!l; S~ Cl'Q.."'Jli . ChW, AJ$f¥ ~~ ~,, 

J 

/ 

-:!/ 

/, 

./ 

I ' . I 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-04-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a. 

-- ~~--- -----------

I ' ' 

:) 

~I L 

·' 

i 

. I
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0108. DRUID HILLS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. et al. v. ROBERT

H. BUCKLER et al.

Applicants Druid Hills Civic Association, Inc., Leland W. K. Chung, Paul M.

Parker, and Elise N. Riley have filed a motion to withdraw this application for

discretionary appeal. The motion is hereby GRANTED, and the application is deemed

WITHDRAWN.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e ,

Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/02/2016

November 02, 2016
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

March 16 , 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Basis for Expedited Approval of ReadyCult ®, Chromocult®, and Modified ColitagTM for the determination of Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) under the Ground

Water Rule

FROM: Jenn ifer Best, Microbiologist Technical Support Center

TO: The Record

The Ground Water Rule (GWR) was proposed in May 2000 (67 FR 65888) and promulgated in 2006 (71 FR 65574)

. Many of the t he methods proposed for use for E. coli dete rmination under

th e GWR were the same as those promulgated for use under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (40 CFR 141.21(f)(6)) at the time of the preparation of the GWR proposal.

D uring the six years between the GWR proposal and promulgation, additional method s for E.

coli determination were evaluated and approved for use under the TCR

. Because these methods were not included in the GWR proposal, they were not included in the final GWR

.

Readycult® and Chromocult® are among the methods approved for E

. coli determination u nder

the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (40 CFR 141.21(f)(6)). Readycult® and Chromocult® w ere approved for use under the TCR in 2002 (67 FR 65888)

, after the proposal of the Ground Water Rule ( 65 FR 30194)

. Prior to the approval of t hese methods under the TC R, these methods were evaluated through the Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) . The ATP process consists of a procedure whereby new methods are evaluated against a previously approved reference method. Through ATP evaluations, b oth Readycult® and Chromocult ® were found to be as equally effective as

Standard Methods 9221F for E. coli determination. Standard Methods 9221F had been previously approved for use under both the TCR and the GWR. F or this reason, these methods would be equally effective for use un der the GWR.

Modified ColitagTM was evaluated through the ATP process and also found to be as equally

effective as Standard Methods 9221F for E. coli determination and was approved for use under the TCR (74 FR 57908, November 2009)

. Since modified ColitagTM has been found to be as equally effective as Standard Methods 9221F, which is approved under the TCR and under the
GWR, modified Colitag would be as equally effective for use in E. coli determination under the

GWR.
JUL 2i2j1f1

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin

USEPA REGION 3

1650 Arch Street

Mail Code: 3RAOO

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Garvin,

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that each State Implementation Plan (SIP) provide for the

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). This section of the Act also requires that within three years of the promulgation of a NAAQS,

a state must adopt and submit a plan to EPA that certifies that the state is meeting the requirements of

Section § 11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M). These “infrastructure SIPs” provide assurances of state resources and

authorities, and where necessary establish the basic state programs to implement, maintain, and enforce

new or revised standards.

On April 3, 2008, Maryland submitted an “infrastructure SIP” to EPA for the fine particle NAAQS titled

“Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

State Implementation Plan”. This SIP addressed the Section 110 (A)-(M) requirements for the 1997

PM2.5 standards.

A revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM25 was promulgated by EPA on

October 17, 2006. This rule revised the 1997 based 24-hour PM25 NAAQS and establishes a lower

primary ambient air quality standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (.ig/m 3)and a secondary standard

equal to the primary standard. Maryland’s authority to implement, maintain and enforce the PM2.5

standard is currently consistent with the 2008 submission. Therefore, we are hereby certifying that

Maryland meets the Section 1 10(a)(2) elements, which are identified in Table 1 (enclosed herein) for the

2006 revisions to the PM2.5 NAAQS.

$ .., — Recycled Paper w’.the.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
Shari T. WilsonSecretary

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration

Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning ProgramBrian Hug, Deputy Program Manager, Air Quality Planning Program

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
--

~o 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

~L86-36/50 USC 3605 

~· 

REF ID:A59097 

----. --- p--i 

Q~ - ' 

1. aeterence 1• -4e to CD letter u-3809g, cla'te4 l • 

1951, subject u ....,.,. Vid.eh btormd tbs. a tla1;. !Nl'9\IM't 

to DlftAl'M sen.al OD017 ~ ld JaUU",J' 1952.1 

TOP 

u. 8. 9-r)-"';f"~l .\LS 01\JJ Y 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-13-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

., _,....._ ,-

1 l, !\ I "i 
REF ID:A59097 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

TOP - I .. ,. -' - I - -I _!., I', I \ 1 I • ' ... 

-- ---- ·-""" 

·----·---···-·-----·-···----·-·----\\\\ 

----"\~ .... - ~' .. -, _ .... -,~: .. 

~_,, ......_,. __ .._ ::___; ~ 

u JI 8Jl 01\JL"\.l -

. 

.! .. a
1 

NO. 03-16-00755-CV

IN COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN RE ARTHUR J. “AJ” LAWRENCE

Original Proceeding from the 353rd Judicial District Court, 

Travis County, Texas, 

Cause No D-1-GN-16-001856, 

The Honorable Stephen Yelenosky, Respondent 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTENT TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

RELATOR’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 Daniel H. Byrne 

 State Bar No. 03565600 

 Lessie Gilstrap 

 State Bar No. 24012630 

 FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & GILSTRAP, 

PLLC 

 221 West 6th Street, Suite 960 

 Austin, Texas 78701 

 Tel: (512) 476-2020 

 Fax: (512) 477-5267 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR CODY TREYBIG, 

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 

ACCEPTED

03-16-00755-CV

13901610

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/21/2016 12:32:26 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/21/2016 12:32:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Real Party in Interest Cody Treybig (“Treybig”) respectfully requests a ten 

day extension of time to file its Response to the Relator’s Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus (“Response”) and shows the Court the following:

1. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure there is no specific 

deadline to file this motion to extend time or to file a response to a petition for writ 

of mandamus. 

2. On November 14, 2016, the Court requested that Treybig file his 

Response on or before Monday, November 28, 2016, which is the Monday after 

Thanksgiving. 

3. Treybig seeks a ten day extension because of several unavoidable, preexisting deadlines and professional obligations of Treybig’s counsel in other matters, 

including an evidentiary hearing on Monday, November 28, 2016, all of which have 

required or will require significant commitments of time. 

4. Relator Lawrence is unopposed to this motion.

5. Treybig requests an additional ten days to file its brief, extending the 

time until December 8, 2016.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Treybig asks the Court to grant it an extension of time to 

file its Response until December 8, 2016.
3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Lessie Gilstrap, counsel for Treybig conferred with Doug Becker, counsel for 

Relator, regarding the Motion to Extend Time to File Response, and Mr. Becker is 

unopposed to such Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & GILSTRAP, PLLC

221 w. 6TH Street, Suite 960

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 476-2020

Facsimile: (512) 477-5267

 By:/s/ Lessie Gilstrap

Daniel H. Byrne

Texas Bar No. 03565600

dbyrne@fbhg.law

Lessie Gilstrap

Texas Bar No. 24012630

lgilstrap@fbhg.law

Counsel for Real Party in Interest Treybig
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing Motion was served on the following counsel of 

record on November 21, 2016, by e-service and email.

Douglas M. Becker

Monte L. Swearengen

GRAY & BECKER, P.C.

900 West Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701

Email: doug.becker@graybecker.com 

Email: monte.swearengen@graybecker.com

/s/ Lessie Gilstrap

Lessie Gilstrap
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


The Board of Directors
PLD Telekom Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8 of PLD Telekom Inc., and in the Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Form S-4 Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-18713) of PLD Telekom
Inc., of our report dated March 23, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheet of PLD Telekom Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December
31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of PLD Telekom Inc.


                                                  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


New York, New York
March 30, 1998
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Revlon Consumer Products Corporation (the"Company") for the period ended December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Jack L. Stahl,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

/s/ Jack L.Stahl                     Jack L. StahlChiefExecutive OfficerMarch 10, 2005

----