alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882973
<NAME> CHESTNUT PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,920,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,216,485
<PP&E>                                       1,033,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,729,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,881,147
<BONDS>                                     13,415,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,729,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,389,810
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,645,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,021,545)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                947,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   947,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Larry James TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheriff Wayne BYRD, Darlington Detention Center; Captain Coe; Diann Wilkes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6810

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Larry James Tyler, DARLINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Dar-lington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Samuel F. Arthur, III, James Rufus Brat-ton, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. •

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The court granted Defendants Byrd and Coe’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as to Defendant Wilkes. We have reviewed the record *216and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tyler v. Byrd,*No. 9:16-cv-01275-MGL, 2017 WL 2626223 (D.S.C. June 19, 2017). We grant Tyler’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### State use of the State Bank vs. Carroll et al.

The eases of *State Bank vs. Barber et al.*7 *Eng.*775, and *State Bank vs. Fowler and Pike,*14 *Ark.*164, approved.

*Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pulaski county.*

S. H. Hempstead for the appellant.

Watkins & GallagheR, for the appellees.

*267Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question of law involved in this case, was decided by this Court in the case of the *State Bank vs. Barber,*7 *Eng R.*775, and affirmed in the case of the *State Bank vs. Fowler*& *Pike,*14 *Ark. R. p.*164.

Absent, Hon. Tuos. B. Hanly.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00695-CV

Soledad Gonzales

v.

Deutsche Bank Trust Co.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-14-3213-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 19, 2015
1 

# RECORD OF COMMUNICATION

February 10, 2012

To: File

From: Erik Snyder Air Planning Section (6PD-L) Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

RE: Mingo Data Substitution for Or ganic and Elemental Carbon

Summary of Communication In researching data issues ra ised by commenter I had discussi ons with Mr. Scott Copeland who

works at CIRA and is a USDA Forest Service Air Data Analyst. Mr. Copeland worked as part of

the IMPROVE committee that conducted the data substitution for IMPROVE monitors, when

monitors had failed to collect data.

The commenter raised concern about lack of data and being able to set an appropriate baseline.

Scott forwarded three documents on the data s ubstitution at Mingo for the baseline period. The monitoring inlet and piping for monitoring Or ganic and Elemental Carbon was plugged up by Wasp like insects for much of the monitoring period and therefore erroneously low data was collected at Mingo. This i ssue was discovered in 2005.

As can be seen from the attached files, a consid erable amount of work went into deciding how to do the substitution. A substitution was done by Warren White at UC Davis, and Cassie Archuleta at ARS and they yielded essent ially the same result (out.pdf).

Looking at the details in the RPO ppt file at tached it is clear that the A module hydrogen measurement was a good predictor of organi c carbon, which in turn was a reasonably good predictor of elemental carbon. It is very important to understa nd that the sulfate and nitrate

measurements used were real valid observati ons and that the carbon species substitution was statistically robust. We are conf ident that the substituted values, either Warren’s or Cassie’s, are

reasonable estimates of the base line conditions and that they represent the best that could practically be done by the experts in this area of expertise.

Overall the data substitution was for species th at are not the species of concern for reducing visibility impacts at this time as NOx and SOx are the primary pollutants of concern. The data

substitution method was conducted tw o ways and vetted by some of th e best scientists in this area of expertise. The net effect of the missing data and substitution would have an extremely minor and inconsequential impact on the Sulfate and Nitrate data and the resultant conclusions on what causes visibility impairment at Mingo during th e baseline period.

Attachments: RPO Call 092805 Mingo.ppt, 58-Ar chuleta.pdf, Out.pdf
Kenneth Winston DIAL v. Warden Dwayne ESTES and State

2160284

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
#### Jon Robert PERROTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cameron LINDSAY, Warden FCI Lompoc, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-56209.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Jon Robert Perroton, Lampoc, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Nancy B. Spiegel, Esq., Jolie F. Zimmerman, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jon Robert Perroton appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and affirm.

Perroton contends that his due process rights are being violated because the Bureau of Prisons refuses to shorten his sentence that was imposed after his parole violation by the 669 days of good time credit which he earned before he was released on parole. The district court dismissed his petition based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Because Perroton has now fully exhausted his administrative remedies, we choose to address the merits. *See Bonin v. Calderon,*77 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir.1996) (“We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the rationale of the district court”). We affirm the district court’s denial of Perroton’s petition because his good time credits were properly applied before he was released on parole and he is not entitled to further relief. See *Boniface v. Carlson,*881 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir.1989) (“Because good time credits no longer exist after parole or mandatory release, the failure to honor such credits following a parole violation is not a “forfeiture” to which the protections of the due process clause might apply”).

The government’s motion to expand the record is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
TRICARE_help@amedd.army.mil 

WHAT IS THE TRICARE HELP E-MAIL SERVICE (THEMS)? 

THEMS is a free e-mail service that provides quick answers to TRICARE questions. 

Clinical questions should be referred to your primary care provider. 

WHO RESPONDS TO E-MAIL REQUESTS? 

The U.S. Army Medical Command TRICARE staff. In some cases, referrals are made 

to other agencies for a response. For cases referred to other agencies, inquirers are 

informed who will respond to their inquiries. Information is kept confidential, and we 

track each e-mail inquiry to ensure answers are provided quickly and professionally. 

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE A REPLY? 

In most cases, responses are provided within 1–2 business days. If an e-mail requires 

research or referral to other agencies, it may take longer; but, you can expect an interim 

response within 3–5 business days. 

HOW CAN I USE THE HELP ADDRESS? 

The e-mail service can be accessed worldwide from any computer connected to the 

Internet. The e-mail address is: TRICARE_help@amedd.army.mil. 

COMMENTS FROM THEMS USERS 

“Thanks so much for your prompt and right on the mark answer.” - RS 

“Thank you for your professional guidance, concern, and competence. Your assistance 

has cleared up the troubling problem that my wife has had with TRICARE benefits. We 

are grateful to you for your responsive efforts.” - JE 

“Thank you for your help in getting TRICARE for Life to process our medical claims.... 

We appreciate the efforts made on our behalf.... We hope that we can fly solo now, but 

it is comforting to know that you are there for us (and countless others).” - WS 

 “Thank you so much for getting back to me. I really didn’t know what to do next, and 

I’m so impressed with how helpful you are.” - KR 

THEMS NEWSLETTER 

THEMS publishes a newsletter each month with current TRICARE benefit information. 

If you would like to receive the THEMS newsletter monthly, please write to us at 

Tricare_help@amedd.army.mil.
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. 

# Rules and Regulations Federal Register 

## 19461

Vol. 79, No. 68 Wednesday, April 9, 2014



### DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE **Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 905**  **[Doc. No. AMS–FV–13–0009; FV13–905–2 IR]**  

### Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and **Tangelos Grown in Florida; Relaxing Size and Grade Requirements on**  **Valencia and Other Late Type Oranges** Correction
■ 

### In rule document 2013–11389 beginning on page 28115 in the issue of Tuesday, May 14, 2013, make the following correction: **§ 905.306 [Corrected]**



### On page 28117, the table should read:



### T ABLE 

### I

Variety Regulation period Minimum grade Minimum diameter (inches) (1) (2) (3) (4)

******* Valencia and other late type ..................... 08/01/2012–05/14/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 1 ................... .............................. 2 8 ⁄ 16 05/15/2013–06/14/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 1 Golden .................................... 2 4 ⁄ 16 06/15/2013–08/31/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 2, External; U.S. No. 1, Internal 2 4 ⁄ 16 **On or after 09/01/13** September 1–May 14 ............................... U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 2 8 ⁄ 16 May 15–June 14 ....................................... U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 2 4 ⁄ 16 June 15–July 31 ....................................... U.S. No. 2, External; U.S. No. 1, Internal 2 4 ⁄ 16 August 1–August 31 ................................. U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 2 4 ⁄ 16 * * * * * * *

[FR Doc. C1–2013–11389 Filed 4–8–14; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 1505–01–D**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 22, 2012

d1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145485

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145485

COA: 303716

Wayne CC: 10-006198-FC

ANTHONY TROY DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7530

KEVIN L. CHOICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. DAVIS, Lieutenant; MEDICAL STAFF, of Kershaw Correctional Institution; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden; LIEUTENANT BROGTON, NFN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-3705-0-18BD) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Choice, Appellant Pro Se. Terry B. Millar, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin L. Choice appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Choice v. Davis , No. CA-99-3705-0-18BD (D.S.C. filed Oct. 3, 2000; entered Oct. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BRAD CAMP, et al., 

Plaintiffs, Civil Action 2:18-cv-00831 

 Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 v. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

MARQUEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 On January 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed two Joint Motions for Approval of Settlement. 

(ECF Nos. 31, 32.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw, indicating that these 

Motions are identical and that the second Motion was filed inadvertently. (ECF No. 33.) As 

such, Plaintiff requests that ECF No. 32 be withdrawn. (Id.) The Motion to Withdraw is 

GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to terminate ECF No. 32. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 14, 2020 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers_________ 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00831-ALM-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 01/14/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 207
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 54
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 55
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 56
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 57
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 58
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 59
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 60
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 61
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 62
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 63
Case: 1:18-cv-00314-MRB-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/04/18 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 64
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02375]



[[Page 6536]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-002]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 24, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through January 31, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220011, Draft, USN, HI, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and 
Intermediate Maintenance Facility Dry Dock and Waterfront Production 
Facility at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii, Comment 
Period Ends: 03/21/2022, Contact: Andrea Von Burg Hall 808-472-1425.
EIS No. 20220012, Second Draft Supplemental, USACE, FL, Port Everglades 
Harbor, Broward County, Florida, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2022, 
Contact: Paul Demarco 904-232-1897.

    Dated: January 31, 2022.
Candi Schaedle,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-02375 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KAMARIA DOBOSU, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-273

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (consent case)

Defendant.

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) LIFTING THE STAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF 

ADDRESSING THE JOINT MOTION TO REMAND; (2) GRANTING THE JOINT

MOTION FOR REMAND (DOC. 14); (3) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE 

COMMISSIONER UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; AND (4) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S 

DOCKET

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is presently before the Court on the parties’ 

joint stipulation to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings 

pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 14. Based upon the stipulation of 

the parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the stay on this case is 

LIFTED; (2) the ALJ’s non-disability finding is found unsupported by substantial evidence, and 

the parties’ joint request for a remand (doc. 14) is GRANTED; (3) this case is REMANDED to 

the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and

(4) this case is TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter 

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/22/2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          61,945
<SECURITIES>                                   208,333
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,326
<PP&E>                                          93,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 860,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,514
<BONDS>                                        287,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                     425,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   860,197
<SALES>                                        106,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,252
<CGS>                                           20,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,372
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,348
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 on Form 10-Q of Immtech Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the “Registrant”), pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended for the three month period ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Eric L. Sorkin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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, as amended;
  and
  2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant and its subsidiaries.
  /s/ Eric L.
Sorkin
 Eric L.
Sorkin
 President and
Chief Executive Officer
 August
11, 2008