alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7710

M. RODNEY JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY D. MAYNARD, Director; JIM HODGES, The South Carolina Governor; CHARLIE CONDON, The South Carolina Attorney General; ROBERT W. STEWART, South Carolina SLED Chief; JIM CHRISTOPHER, South Carolina SLED Chief; BRENTON GLISSON, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-157-3-24)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Saunders McKenzie Bridges, BRIDGES, ORR, DERRICK & ERVIN, Florence, South Carolina; Robert E. Lee, Amy Anderson Wise, AIKEN BRIDGES, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: M. Rodney Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. South Carolina , No. CA-02-157-3-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2002). 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 DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-227

Janay Ruiz 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 16) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the

information, and she is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. 

The court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: December 27, 2017 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7440** 

VAN ANTHONY ROSE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Di strict of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00194

- RJC

- CH

- 1; 3:08

- cv 00216

- RJC )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Van Anthony Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Van Anthony Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A cer tificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies rel ief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently revi ewed the record and conclude that Rose has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Shamsher Medih Chisti v. Sana Chisti aka Kiran Wilwerding

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00780

- CV

Trial court case number : 2013

- 12431

Trial court: 257th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied

. Costs are taxed against the

appellant as he is the only party to the appeal. The appeal is from a dismissal for want of

prosecution before any other party was joined in the suit. Appellee has not been served with

process in the trial court, nor did app ellee appear in the trial court or in the court of appeals.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Jane Bland

_

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Date: April 21 , 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

Christian Showalter

Plaintiff,

 Case Number: 1:18-cv-103

vs 

(Dlott)

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The 

issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its 

verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The 

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been 

rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of 

United States Magistrate Judge Karen L Litkovitz filed on January 31, 2019 doc [18]and 

The Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the 

decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. This matter is hereby REMANDED for further 

proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

March 14, 2019

 Richard W. Nagel, Clerk of Court

 By s/Jennifer Webster 

 Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PETER Y. BENNETT,

Respondent

v.

PAMELA A. BENNETT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 608 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11628]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition Journey from Sketch to Screen” at the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture, Spokane, Washington, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-00787 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1003

___________

Anthony C. Kenney, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2005 

Filed: February 7, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Kenney (Kenney) appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the

denial of supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

find the administrative law judge correctly denied benefits because substantial

evidence demonstrates Kenney had not ceased to engage in substantial gainful
-2-

activity for any continuous 12-month period. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A)

(individual is disabled for purposes of supplemental security income if he is unable

to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be

expected to last for continuous period of at least 12 months); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b)

(2004) (claimant is not disabled if he is engaged in substantial gainful activity).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
NO. 07

- 11

- 0478

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JANUARY 5

, 2012

______________________________

KENNETH STEPHEN CAVAZOS

,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_ ______________________________

FROM THE 47 th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 63,422

- A; HON. DAN L. SCHAAP , PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant

, Kenneth Stephen Cavazos

, appeals his conviction for unauthorized use

of a vehicle

. The certification of right to appeal stated that 1) the criminal proceeding was

“a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and 2) “the defendant

has waived the right of appeal.” This circumstance was brought to the attention of

appellant and opportunity was granted him to obtain an amended c ertification entitling

him to appeal. No such certificati on was received within the allotted time . Having no2

certification indicating that appellant has a right to appeal his conviction , we dismiss the

appeal per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
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-00678-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 49
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-00678-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 50
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.9      1997 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN - ANNUAL BONUS INCENTIVE


1997 Total Annual Revenue            Bonus X Factor
                    not continuous

         $ 8,500,000                        0.25
         $ 9,000,000                        0.50
         $ 9,500,000                        0.75
         $10,000,000                        1.00
         $10,500,000                        1.30
         $11,000,000                        1.60
         $11,500,000                        1.90
         $12,000,000                        2.20
         $12,500,000                        2.50
                    not continuous

Bonus Amounts for Executives based on Bonus Factor of 1.00

          Roy J. Dimoff              President and CEO          $  30,000
          Christopher K Phillips     Vice President                20,000
          Nancy Phillips             Vice President                20,000
          Kevin Loud                 Vice President                20,000
          D. Kirk Roberts            Chief Financial Officer       16,000
          Employees                                               153,000

          Total                                                 $ 259,000
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45899

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JESUS ADAN CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: December 12, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bingham County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty-five years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of fifteen years, for murder in the first degree, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jesus Adan Castillo pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree. I.C. §§ 18-4001, 18-

4002, 18-4003(d). The district court sentenced Castillo to a unified forty-five year sentence, 

with fifteen years determinate. Castillo filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Castillo appeals.1

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. 

 1 Castillo does not assert the district court abused its discretion by denying his Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion. 
2

See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State 

v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 

Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, 

we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 

391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Castillo’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 952

EX PA R TE O LIVE R W EN D EL L H A R T, I I I , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 0 4 F 0 2 7 5 - 0 0 5 I N T HE 5 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM BOW I E CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
. Applicant was c onvicted of manufa cture of a contr olled substance and sente nced to thirty y ear s’ imprisonment. Ap pli c a nt c on te nd s th a t his c ou ns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e becau se he fa ile d to advise him of his rig ht to file an appe al. Th e t r i a l c o u rt h a s d e t e r

m i n e d t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o a d v i s e A p p l i c a n t o f h i s r ig ht t o appea l and fa iled to f

ile notice of appea l on A

pplicant’s beha lf. We find, there fore , that Applicantis entitled to the opportunity to f ile an out-of-time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 04F0275- 005 from the 5 J udicial Dis trict Court of Bow ie County . Applicant is order ed re turned th to that time at which he may g ive a wr itten noti ce o f ap p ea l s o that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a

meaning ful appe al. All time limi ts shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had be en imposed on the date on w hich the manda te of this Court issues. W e hold that, s hould Applicant desire to pr osecute an appe al, he must take affirma tive steps to file a wr itten notice of a ppeal in the tr ia l c ou rt wi thi n 3 0 d a y s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: J une 25, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00921]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE


Notice of Board of Directors Meeting

AGENCY: United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and Endowment of the 
United States Institute of Peace.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Meeting of the Board of Directors: Chair's Report; Vice 
Chair's Report; President's Report; Approval of Minutes; USIP Key 
Current Initiatives: Ethiopia; Afghanistan and Pakistan; Strategic 
Stability; and Youth; Reports from USIP Board Committees: Governance 
and Compliance; Strategy and Program; Audit and Finance; Security and 
Facilities; and Talent and Culture.

DATES: Friday, January 21, 2022 (10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: Virtual Board Meeting Information: Join by video: Join 
ZoomGov Meeting https://usip-org.zoomgov.com/j/1617695522?pwd=dzMwNWFCbzJGZHlPOGZzUk15TjNBZz09; Meeting ID: 161 769 
5522; Passcode: 249160.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan O'Hare, 202-429-4144, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69040601081b0c291c1a001947061b0e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28454740495a4d685d5b415806475a4f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Open Session--Portions may be closed 
pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States 
Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States 
Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525.
    Authority: 22 U.S.C. 4605(h)(3).

    Dated: January 10, 2022.
Megan O'Hare,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2022-00921 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Data Systems & Software Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2004
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Yacov Kaufman,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that:

       (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 result of operations
            of the Company.



 /s/ YACOV KAUFMAN
-------------------------
Yacov Kaufman
Chief Financial Officer
August 10, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
               OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Dyson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Patrick J. Dyson
____________________

Patrick J. Dyson
Chief Financial Officer


May 16, 2005