alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

VINNY GEORGE, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:17-cv-802 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

MR. SHEKHAR, 

 Defendant. 

 ORDER 

On January 3, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. (See Doc. 5). The parties were 

specifically advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the 

consequences of their failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report 

and Recommendation. 

 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to effect timely service of process. The 

Clerk shall remove Document 5 from the Court’s pending motions list and close this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00714-KAJ Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 30
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00714-KAJ Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 31
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Glenn Covert,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:17cv653

Steven Batsch, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate 

Judge on December 12, 2017 (Doc. 5). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and 

Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate 

Judge, the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would not be 

taken in good faith and would be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DANIEL P. HARGROVE, : Case No. 1:17-cv-560

 :

Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black 

: Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

vs. :

 :

C.O. HOLLEY, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on October 31, 2017, submitted a 

Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff filed objections on November 8, 

2017. (Doc. 13).1

 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo 

all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

 

1 After reviewing the Report and Recommendations, Petitioner’s objections, and the case 

record, the Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are not well taken. Plaintiff’s two page 

objections merely restate some of his claims without directly addressing the sound legal analysis 

of the Report and Recommendations. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to address the Magistrate 

Judge’s finding that several of the named Defendants cannot be sued due to sovereign immunity 

or the finding that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under either the First Amendment 

or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
2

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

1) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE, with the exception of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment individual 

capacity claim for failure to protect against defendants Holley and Hubbert and 

his Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs against defendant Heyd.

2) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and to further amend the 

complaint (Doc 8) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ________________________

 Timothy S. Black

 United States District Judge 

12/27/17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MARILYN SHELBY, 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-728

Magistrate Judge Jolson

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER

This case has been reported settled. A telephonic status conference will be held on 

July 2, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., unless the dismissal entry is received prior to that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 18, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00728-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/18/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 71
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-80341) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock Plan of Pharmacopeia, 
Inc., the 1995 Director Option Plan of Pharmacopeia, Inc. and the 1995 Employee 
Stock Purchase Plan of Pharmacopeia, Inc. and in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-20883) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock Plan of 
Pharmacopeia, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 1998, except for Note 13 as 
to which the date is February 4, 1998, with respect to the financial statements 
of Pharmacopeia, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A-1) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Princeton, New Jersey
April 14, 1998
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 1 of 25 PAGEID #: 1679
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 2 of 25 PAGEID #: 1680
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 3 of 25 PAGEID #: 1681
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 4 of 25 PAGEID #: 1682
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 5 of 25 PAGEID #: 1683
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 6 of 25 PAGEID #: 1684
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 7 of 25 PAGEID #: 1685
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 8 of 25 PAGEID #: 1686
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 9 of 25 PAGEID #: 1687
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 10 of 25 PAGEID #: 1688
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 11 of 25 PAGEID #: 1689
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 12 of 25 PAGEID #: 1690
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 13 of 25 PAGEID #: 1691
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 14 of 25 PAGEID #: 1692
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 15 of 25 PAGEID #: 1693
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 16 of 25 PAGEID #: 1694
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 17 of 25 PAGEID #: 1695
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 18 of 25 PAGEID #: 1696
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 19 of 25 PAGEID #: 1697
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 20 of 25 PAGEID #: 1698
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 21 of 25 PAGEID #: 1699
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 22 of 25 PAGEID #: 1700
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 23 of 25 PAGEID #: 1701
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 24 of 25 PAGEID #: 1702
Case: 1:17-cv-00656-SJD-KLL Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 25 of 25 PAGEID #: 1703
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4423 

To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay 

adjustment in 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2010 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any 

automatic pay adjustment in 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Pay 

5 Raise Elimination Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS 

7 OF CONGRESS IN 2011. 

8 For purposes of the provision of law amended by sec9 tion 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4423 IH

1 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of 

2 title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have 

3 taken effect in fiscal year 2011 in the rates of pay under 

4 the General Schedule. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DIANE SWEENEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SOLIDIFI US INC., et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 17-cv-792

Judge Timothy S. Black

CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court being advised that the parties have reached an agreement to settle this 

civil action;

It is ORDERED that all claims in this action are hereby DISMISSED with 

prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 30 days, 

move to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Also, if desired, the parties 

may timely move to substitute a judgment entry contemplated by the settlement 

agreement.

The Court expressly and explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement of the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 7/17/2019 /s/ Timothy S. Black 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4425 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2–116th Street in North Troy, New York, as the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ 

Mahar Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2010 

Mr. TONKO (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. KING

of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. 

MEEKS of New York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. 

WEINER, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. MCMAHON, Mrs. MALONEY, 

Mr. SERRANO, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. 

MURPHY of New York, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. OWENS, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. 

MAFFEI, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. 

MASSA, and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2–116th Street in North Troy, New York, 

as the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ Mahar Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MARTIN G. ‘‘MARTY’’ MAHAR POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2–116th Street in North Troy, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4425 IH

1 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Martin 

2 G. ‘Marty’ Mahar Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Martin G. ‘Marty’ 

7 Mahar Post Office’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 432 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow parents of murdered 

children to continue to claim the deduction for the personal exemption 

with respect to such child. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow parents of murdered children to continue to claim the deduction for the personal exemption with respect to such 

child. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF PERSONAL EXEMPTION FOR 

4 MURDERED CHILDREN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 152 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to other defi7 nitions and rules) is amended by redesignating paragraph 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 432 IH

1 (7) as paragraph (8) and inserting after paragraph (6) 

2 the following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(7) SPECIAL RULE FOR MURDERED CHIL4 DREN.— 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Solely for purposes of 

6 determining the deduction under section 151(c), 

7 a child of the taxpayer who is determined by 

8 law enforcement authorities to have been the 

9 victim of a homicide (as determined under State 

10 law) committed by someone other than the tax11 payer— 

12 ‘‘(i) shall be treated as meeting the 

13 requirement of subsection (c)(1)(B) with 

14 respect to the taxpayer for the applicable 

15 period, if such child had, for the taxable 

16 year which included the date of the death 

17 of such child, the same principal place of 

18 abode as the taxpayer for more than one19 half of the portion of such year before the 

20 date of such death, and 

21 ‘‘(ii) shall be treated as a qualifying 

22 relative of the taxpayer for the applicable 

23 period, if such child was (without regard to 

24 this paragraph) a qualifying relative of the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 432 IH

1 taxpayer for the portion of the taxable year 

2 before the date of such death. 

3 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE PERIOD.—For purposes 

4 of this paragraph, the term ‘applicable period’ 

5 means, with respect to any child of the tax6 payer, each taxable year of the taxpayer ending 

7 after the date of the death of such child and be8 ginning before the earlier of— 

9 ‘‘(i) the date which is 5 years after 

10 the date of such death, or 

11 ‘‘(ii) the date that such child would 

12 have attained the age of 18.’’. 

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

14 this section shall apply with respect to deaths in taxable 

15 years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC,

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

 v.

BERNARD J. CARL,

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

Civil No. 09-1402 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(December 3, 2009)

On July 28, 2009, Plaintiff, the Marbury Law Group, PLLC, (“Marbury”) filed the

Complaint in the above-captioned matter seeking to enforce a monetary judgment entered by the

Fairfax County Circuit Court in favor of Marbury and against Defendant, Bernard J. Carl, in the

amount of $135,324.07. See Complaint, Docket No. [1]. On October 15, 2009, Mr. Carl filed an

Answer and Counterclaim to Marbury’s Complaint. See Ans. & Counterclaim, Docket Nos. [6]

& [7]. Thereafter, on November 2, 2009, Marbury filed a [13] Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s

Counterclaim and a [12] Motion to Dismiss its own Complaint for a lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

Mr. Carl is representing himself, pro se. On November 9, 2009, the Court issued an [14]

Order, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir.

1988), advising Mr. Carl that he must respond to both Marbury’s [13] Motion to Dismiss his

Counterclaim and Marbury’s [12] Motion to Dismiss its own Complaint by no later than

Monday, November 30, 2009, or the Court would treat the motions as conceded and dismiss

both Marbury’s Complaint and Carl’s Counterclaim. As of the date of this Memorandum
2

Opinion and accompanying Order, the docket reflects that no such response has been filed by Mr.

Carl. Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s November 9, 2009 Order, the Court shall GRANT as

conceded Marbury’s [13] Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim and Marbury’s [12]

Motion to Dismiss its own Complaint. This case is therefore DISMISSED in its entirety

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December 3, 2009

 

 /s/ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, John Adams, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Muller Media, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date:
August 19, 2003


/s/ John J. Adams
---------------------
   [Signature]

CHAIRMAN
----------------
[Title]