alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HEADER

OFFICE

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: Policy Memorandum - Command Philosophy 

06 July 2017 

1. I am honored to serve as your commander. My goal is to foster a climate that

maintains the success this battalion has earned. My core command philosophy, outlined

below, is the first step. It will guide me in leading this battalion and should be

considered my base guidance to all.

2. My expectations for all cadre are Professionalism, Expertise, Empathy,

Responsibility, & Leadership (P.E.E.R. Leadership).

3. Live the creeds; Soldier, NCO, Ranger. Lead and instruct by example. Soldiers are

always observing, whether you notice it or not.

4. Students are our Soldiers while attending training. Treat them as such; train them

hard, treat them with respect, and invest in their success.

5. Attrition will happen naturally, we will not induce it. Training will always be outcome

based and grounded in safety. Commander involvement and cadre expertise are the

hallmarks of effective training.

6. Evaluating a standard is objective; leadership, coaching, teaching, and mentoring

require empathy and subjectivity. Know the difference and be agile.

7. Risk management is critical and complacency is unacceptable; commanders are

directly responsible and safety is a primary duty for all. I will underwrite risk through the

composite risk management worksheet, it is a commander's contract with me.

8. Maintenance and supply discipline are integral to training and readiness. We will not

fail due to lack of either.

9. Actively manage the triad of professional, personal, and family requirements to care

for yourself, your Soldiers, and Families in order to maintain physical, emotional, and

spiritual wellbeing and readiness.

10. Have fun while serving here. I will do my best to foster a climate that promotes

professionalism and personal satisfaction.

JOHN E. DOE

LTC, IN

Commanding
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF CEO AND CFO 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 Pacific Ventures Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shannon
Masjedi, the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|/s/
    Shannon Masjedi                                                | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Shannon
    Masjedi                                                    | 
|President,
Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer | 



Date:
August 20, 2020



This
Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 nos. 33-15777, 33-33966, 66-61286, 33-90490, 333-01885, 333-07519, 333-69597, 333-69599, 333-92879, 333-51892, 333-51894, 333-106601, 333-108736, 333-119740 and 333-123349) pertaining to various stock plans of Manatron, Inc. of our report dated June 24, 2005, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Manatron, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2005.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Grand Rapids, Michigan
July 15, 2005
!"#

$%
&'(


#

)
*+,

(((

 
 
 (  
 
 
 



-

  

 .    $/ 
 





(





0
(





(
((



*
.
(
#









((

 ( 
 

  
 

 
 /1







((
(


















(2((	




7KH +RQRUDEOH -RVHSK 0 +RRG 8Q

(DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI .HQWXFN\ VLWWLQJ E\ G

	

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D


	




34567#'86

999999999999

"1,7(' #7$7(6 2) :0(5,&$

	



;(21$5' 5$< 25,)),6

		

:
(
"
#

(
>
=(


/	/?1?

)
(=

:
B=



=

3
B>

C
(
B#';75C:)67

644==

999999999999





	  D C C
)45;7E F ;E;7 
 5
 ) D :##'#:

 	


 	
	

:457E 
 



 ( :



   D C C
 C5")7 D7:675#)45;7E F ;E;7 
 



 ( :
6 C >= :##'#: "'7= #:7#:457E




(:


;
52((>

G
H








A4#7I6>644==A
;
52((

%J2((J& 
  


  

  ( 

(	"#)K
		!
((


( 

   ( 	 "#) K /
$%&  3 

L(LL




2(( 


  
  
 >
 = (





(

(
=)4

L
H
 
  =


 	 	//  )




(	"#)K
		!)L
L
((

(
(	"#)K/
$%&2((





(

>
=(3(
H


3=




	// L


(

#
=('(
 H 
 
  2


 ' :	 	// 

(
3'L

 (

  
 >
 = ( 



 (
3
5)I


' 2((M I



 '
 5
 %I#5& 


 ((
 


  
 


   




  ((



 ( 
 3 ' 

   "
 #
 #



	
	 


N
(

	//3
 $ 

:





: 
 
 ( 
 "#

 	 
& 
B *6
 ( L 
 H 
	"#)K/
$%&


L




LL
(.     
((





(

 #

 )  	
  
  : 
 
  

 L


.(
P*



'

(2((



-
6
(


   ( 
 


(

(


(
4(






L

L
((

 L
 ( 
 
L

(



L





:






2((M



L

(((


2((


((

H(

 	


 	
	



  
 /1 


   	 "#)

K/
$%&%	&%=&%&%
0


(( 
  

   
 


&
2((

L
(



:(
L











K/
$%&
 
 
 L
 

 ( 

((

  	
  !"		13! 	
  %/ ) 	///& %   








L



((
L


((



(L




(
LL








(
 ( (
  
  
 
 


(
L


 ((


&?	
#	 /3!	!

	$%	)	// &%
&?	
	//

3
$ !%1)	//!&%
&'(	
L
>O
H


(



K/
$%&I(




L

L
>O
HL
K/
$%&C>O
H




 

  ((

 

 L 

 (  L
  
 
 L 

  
#

)
B

  

 
 L
 

 L

 



  
 
  LH
 


K
C!	%&%
&%)&(
(L

 K/
$%& (
 

2

 


 (  

 

 L








K/
$%&
  L 
 
 $ 
  
 


>O
H




-(
(L

L


E
L










L 
 

Q C 
 2

 K/
$%&
O







	
	 

2

%"##2&K
C!	%&%
&
(



I#


 ( 
 


=
(

(

I#5


((



3





 



 
  : "##2K!=	$L(  

 

 
((

 

 ( !	  2(( 



(
L

)
 L  2((M 

 

 

L/1	
	

4:/
	



  
 
 ((
I#5



L




 
  
0
  


((
K/

  
 $ 
 
=
(
N 
  



4:	 
2((

N






:
(


H

L

B %	&



LL?%
&



L
 ( 
 

 


L

(
? %$&
 


 LL 

   

 

	"#)K!1$
%

3!!!/%)	//!&%
$ 	


 	
	

 L -  

L  


 L 


 



 
0
&

D
 

L 
  N  (







L((( 
 
   
   %%  

	
&"			3!!!! %)	//$&



2((
L


(





L
O
L
(
(


  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 *
 .    (
 !"#$%
&


(
LHL




2((M 
 
 
  
  
('

(L

2((L%


L

(
(












H





(






((



L







)
 
*+,

>2((N
L

L





 (
K/
$%& 


-
((



(
2


'
3H

L
(




(L
L




-
((



(
 (
)





L
(




(L
.'



 
  

 
 

 


 (  
 ((

 

 ( 
 

 


L



(L(






(
K/
$%& 

   


 2((  
 (
O
  (   L
   

	
	 

7KH SXQLVKPHQW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ HV

RI D VHFRQG RU VXEVHTXHQW FRQYLFWLRQ XQVKDOO 2 EH VHQWHQFHG WR D WHUP RI LPS\HDUV ́  86&  F&  (
   



L
L
H


L
(

L
((



LL
'


L
L

2((
(

(



(
( 
 
  

 K /

  L 
 

 
 L 

  ( ((

 

 

 ( K /
$%& 
0
   






L
 

 


  K /
$%&  

 
 ((


 (   L



0

-

H



-
(K!=	$
I#5

 ( 
 (  
 '

I#5


((



 L 
  :K!=	$

!	 L L -
 LL=
(
N

(


(

L
=










=
(

K/
$%&
January 16, 2015 

Mr. Brian Godsen 

Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC 

4551 Research Parkway 

Warren, OH 44483 

Dear Mr. Godsen: 

This is in response to your September 30, 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2014-

0788) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Delphi 

Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi) for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) 

and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.9 (b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and 

(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Delphi to 

commercially operate its fleet of small unmanned vehicles and lightweight unmanned aircraft 

vehicles in facility assessment operations, to conduct its own research, and to support 

economic platforms for law enforcement, first responders, and search and rescue. 

By email dated December 5, 2014, which posted to the docket December 9, the FAA sent 

you a request for additional information asking you to: 

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed unmanned aerial system 

(UAS) operation; 

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed; 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum; 

 Describe the proximity of the proposed operations to airports and populated areas; 

and 

 Describe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition 

for operation in the national airspace system. 
2

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed your 

exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please resubmit 

your petition for exemption to the public docket. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Lirio Liu 

Director 

Office of Rulemaking
#### SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and The Torrington Company (now known as Timken U.S. Corporation), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1040.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 26, 2004.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the United States’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, 01-1040,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The stay of proceedings is lifted and the motion to dismiss is granted.

> (2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
United States District Court for the 

District of 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.

Defendant.

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that , Name all parties taking the appeal

hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from 

 The final judgment, from an order describing it 

entered in this action on the day of , .

 (s) 

 Address: 

 

 Attorney for 

Note to inmate filers: If you are an inmate confined in an institution and you seek the timing 

benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1), complete Form 7 (Declaration of Inmate Filing) and file that 

declaration along with this Notice of Appeal.

cc: Opposing Counsel 

Court of Appeals 

6CA-3 

11/16 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 129 Filed: 12/03/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 675
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.; 

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

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: July 31, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  BESTNET COMMUNICATIONS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of BestNet
Communications Corp. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I Stanley L. Schloz, President 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/  Stanley L. Schloz
-----------------------------
     Stanley L. Schloz
     President

November 29, 2005
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 Annual Report of Enigma Software Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alvin
      Estevez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
      the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






/s/
      Alvin
      Estevez





Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      23,
      2007
Clayton AUSTIN, Appellant, v. Cynthia M. AUSTIN n/k/a Cynthia M. Wardlaw, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MICHAEL D. HENDERSON, : Case No. 3:18-cv-172
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

aa

This social security case is presently before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion
to Remand. (Doc. #10). The parties move for the entry of a judgment reversing the
Commissioner’s decision under sentence four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with remand of the case to the Commissioner for further
administrative proceedings.

Upon remand, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative
Law Judge’s decision. The Commissioner will develop the administrative record as
necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act, hold a new hearing, and then issue a new decision.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. #10) is
ACCEPTED;


2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in Plaintiff's
favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58;

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security
Administration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), for further consideration consistent with this Decision
and Entry and the parties’ Joint Motion; and

4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. C
Date: 7 ~} B- y) Les

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Andrew R. MALLORY, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania.

No. 15143.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 1965.

Decided March 1, 1965.

Certiorari Denied June 1, 1965.

See 85 S.Ct. 1781.

Andrew R. Mallory, pro se.

Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Patrick F.. Casey, Asst. Dist. Atty., F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNEK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

*913PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we find no error.

The Order of the District Court will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated in the opinion of Judge Higginbotham filed September 30, 1964, 240 F.Supp. 373.
#### Epstein *v.*Kansas City Life Insurance Company.

4-2718

Opinion delivered November 7, 1932.

*453*James B. Yerger,*for appellant.

*Carmichael & Hendrichs,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is undisputed that the receiver collected the $5,000 rental as receiver, which he failed to pay into the court, though ordered to do so, and, upon appellee’s motion for judgment against Clark as receiver for $5,000 and Sam Epstein, surety on his bond, for $1,000, the amount of the bond signed by the surety, the judgment was rendered.

Appellant insists that he was not bound, under the terms of the bond, to pay the amount of the penalty thereof for the money collected by the receiver and deposited by him in the bank which failed, resulting in the loss thereof. It is true the condition of the bond is not in the language provided in the statute, § 8600, Crawford & Moses’ Digest, but it is in accordance with the requirements of the provisions of § 8614 thereof, requiring the receiver to execute a bond with one or more sureties approved by the court, in such form as the court shall direct, “to the effect that he will faithfully discharge the duties of receiver in the action and obey the orders of the court therein.” The powers of such receiver are designated *454in § 8615 of the Digest, to receive -rents, collect debts, etc.; and the receiver and his surety under the bond, conditioned as it is to the effect that he will faithfully discharge the duties, of receiver in the action and obey the orders of the court therein, were hound to the payment into the court of all moneys or assets which shall come into his hands as receiver in the case, according to the order of the court, as though it had been so expressly stipulated in the language of the statute, said § 8600, Crawford & Moses’ Digest.

- If there had been no statement of it relative to the execution of the bond and its liability under the later statute, which is in nowise in conflict, but is in harmony, with the first statute, a surety on a receiver’s bond would have been bound to account for and pay over moneys collected by the receiver upon the order of the court. In *National Surety Company*v. *Byrd,*179 Ark. 688, 17 S. W. (2d) 876, the court held that the receiver and the sureties on his bond were bound to account for and pay into the court, when required by its order, all money and assets coming into his hands as such receiver, and the failure to malee such payment was not excused by the insolvency of a bank in which such funds were deposited. It was there said:

“The receiver is an officer of the court appointing him, and the condition of the receiver’s bond, as prescribed by statute, is different from that required of administrators, the receiver being bound to account for and pay into court all money or assets which shall come into his hands as such receiver, and in that respect like the bonds of public officials, requiring them to account for and pay over money coming into their hands as such. Sections 1096, 2832,10,029, Crawford & Moses’ Digest.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 3:18 CR 86

Plaintiff
vs.
ORDER
EVELIO SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant.

The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment. For good
cause shown, the Court hereby orders that the Superseding Jmdictment be dismissed without

prejudice.

Hohorable Thomas M. Rose
United States District Court Judge
EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(in thousands, except per-share data)
                                        FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        1995        1994        1993
<S>                                     <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income used for earnings per
     share calculation                  $105,333    $ 66,196    $ 56,115
Earnings Per Common Share:
Weighted average outstanding shares (1)  133,331     129,570     127,970
Net effect of outstanding options (1)      5,565       5,040       7,232
Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding (1)   138,896     134,610     135,202
Net income per share (1)                $   0.76    $   0.49    $   0.42

</TABLE>

Fully diluted computation not presented since such amounts differ by 
less than 3 percent of the net income per share amounts shown above.


Note:

(1)     Share and per-share information applicable to prior periods has 
been restated to reflect a two-for-one stock split (effected in the form 
of a stock dividend) which was effective June 26, 1995.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

 COMMISSION,

Plaintiff

v.

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE

and

DONAHUE SECURITIES, INC.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. C-1-01-116

(Judge Beckwith)

ORDER APPROVING 

RECEIVER’S AMENDED MOTION TO 

APPROVE SEVENTH INTERIM REPORT

This action comes before the Court on the Receiver’s Amended Sixth Interim Report and 

Motion to Approve Same filed on December 10, 2003 by Michael R. Barrett as the Receiver for 

Stephen G. Donahue and formerly for S.G. Donahue & Company, Inc. by order entered March 7, 

2001 (the “Receiver”) (the “Amended Seventh Interim Report”) and the pleadings and papers of 

record and docket entries in this action.

The Court is of the opinion tha t the motion is well taken and should be granted and 

therefore it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Seventh Interim Report is hereby approved.

SO ORDERED.

Sandra S. Beckwith

United States District Judge

Submitted by:

/s/ Richard Boydston

Richard Boydston (22360)

Attorney for Michael R. Barrett, Receiver

Ulmer & Berne LLP

600 Vine Street, Suite 2800

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2409

(513) 762-6202; (513) 762-6245 (fax)

rboydston@ulmer.com

26950\00001 - 248136.1

12/10/2003 2:54 PM

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 100-2 Filed 12/10/2003 Page 1 of 1