alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 0

- 439 V

(E

- Filed : A ugust 26, 2014 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

J AMIE MILLER, as Personal * UNPUBLISHED

Representative of the Estate of

, LISA

MILLER, *

*

Petitioner, * Special Master

* Hamilton

- Fieldman

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

F . John Caldwell, Jr.

, M aglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL

, for Petitioner.

L inda S. Renzi

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent

.

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 the

undersigned issued a decision on D ecember 12, 2013 . On A ugust 25, 2014

, the parties

filed a Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. This stipulation requests a total

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002,

Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. §

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), ea ch party has 14 days within

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that

are medical files and similar files the disclo sure of which would constitute a clearly

unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to

the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).2

payment of $ 5 7,600.00 , representing total attorney s’ fees and costs

. Purs uant to General

Order #9, the stipulation ref lects that Petitioner incurred no costs in pursuit of his claim.

The undersigned find s that this petition was brought in good faith and that there

existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is

appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed

amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby

award s the amount of $ 5 7,600.00 , in the form of a check made payab le jointly to

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, F . John Caldwell, Jr., Esq.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Ap pendix B of

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Brion Umidi, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2006         By:  /s/ BRION UMIDI    Name:  Brion Umidi    *Title:*  *Chief Financial Officer*  
39
#### Richard P. DAGRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A., succeeded by merger with BAC Home Loan Servicing LP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-56799

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Richard P. Dagres, Pro Se

Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elena O. Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard P. Dagres appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *795*Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dagres’ securitization related state law claims because California law does not permit Dagres to bring a preemptive suit to challenge defendants’ authority to foreclosure. *See Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 823-24 (2011). Each of Dagres’ arguments for why defendants lack authority to foreclose have been rejected by the California courts. *See, e.g., Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*245 Cal.App.4th 808, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790, 795-96 (2016) (borrowers lack standing to challenge assignments of loans into a securitized trust); *Siliga v. Mortg. Elect. Registration Syst., Inc.,*219 Cal.App.4th 75, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500, 506 (2013) (“California courts have held that a trustor who agreed under the terms of the deed of trust that [electronic database provider Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], as the lender’s nominee, has the authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the lender ... is precluded from maintaining a cause of action based on the allegation that MERS has no authority to exercise those rights.”), *abrogated in part by Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Carp.,*62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016).

We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ossie LUCY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0374

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00384

- CR

SAMUEL ALAN TUCKER

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27,546

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is granted by the Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4,

9.2(c)(4), 49, and 49.8.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied by the Court.

PER CURIAMTucker v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Scoggins

Motions granted and denied

Order issued and filed January 9, 2019
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 Annual  Report of Tasker  Capital  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Robert Jenkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

April 15, 2005                        /s/ Robert Jenkins
                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Robert Jenkins
                                      Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-43138, 33-61907, 33-10257,333-44959, 333-61833, 333-69268, 333-90919, 333-88250, and 333-102199) pertaining to the 1981 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1987 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1995 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, asamended, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, CEO Option Program, VP Sales Option Program and VP Finance & Administration Option Program of California Micro Devices Corporation of our report dated May 8, 2003 (except for the thirdparagraph of Note 9, as to which the date is June 26, 2003), with respect to the financial statements and schedule of California Micro Devices Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

San Jose, California 

June 27, 2003
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

GEORGE GARIBAY, AKA Scooby,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50098

D.C. No. 

3:13-cr-04514-BEN-8

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,** District

Judge.

 

We reject George Garibay’s contention that attempted murder under

California law is not a “crime of violence” for the purposes of the Sentencing

Guidelines’ career offender provision. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2015). The commentary

FILED

JAN 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 2

to the “crime of violence” definition in § 4B1.2 lists attempted murder among the

enumerated offenses that qualify as crimes of violence.

The kill zone theory does not render attempted murder under California law

broader than the generic form of the offense. The elements of both the California

and the generic form of attempted murder include a specific intent to kill. See

Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 351 n.* (1991); People v. Stone, 205 P.3d

272, 275 (Cal. 2009); cf. United States v. Albino-Loe, 747 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th

Cir. 2014). The kill zone theory does not allow for an attempted murder conviction

in the absence of that mental state requirement. Rather, it merely explains that

when a defendant chooses a method of killing that creates a zone of fatal danger,

the jury may infer that the defendant intended to kill an alleged victim in that zone. 

Stone, 205 P.3d at 276–78. Garibay has failed to identify a single jurisdiction

rejecting this inference or an application of California’s kill zone theory that

criminalized conduct as attempted murder that most jurisdictions would not.

AFFIRMED.
(Mark One)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, indefinitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part IIIof this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrantis a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [ ] No[X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked price of such partnership interests as of thelast business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter. No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**

** **
Branden J. BAILEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1682

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

Branden J. Bailey, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
#### Walter Camilo LOPEZ-DIAZ Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-3106

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2017

Filed: April 3, 2017

Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz, Pro Se

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Julie M. Iv-ersen, Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

*523PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) to deny his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (permitting cancellation of removal for alien (1) physically present in the United States continuously for at least 10 years immediately preceding application, (2) with good moral character during that period, (3) not convicted of certain offenses, and (4) whose removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to certain qualifying relatives). As relevant, the IJ found that Lopez-Diaz failed to establish his continuous presence in the United States, the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives, and good moral character. Lopez-Diaz claims only that the agency’s continuous-physical-presence finding was erroneous, contending that an unspecified witness affidavit and his untimely-filed income tax returns were not accorded credible weight. He makes no argument challenging the IJ’s findings regarding hardship or moral character. Under the conjunctive language of section 1229b(b)(1), Lopez-Diaz had to meet all four prerequisites for cancellation of removal; thus, the unchallenged findings are dispositive of the matter before us.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Barbara POPE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0310

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Michele L. MCKAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lance V. MCELHINEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0764

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 164A/29 Μ

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 164A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 57ό έτος29 Μαΐου 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 164A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

57ό έτος29 Μαΐου 2014

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Γνωστοποιήσεις |
| | ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ |
| | Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Παράταση της προθεσμίας υποβολής αιτήσεων για τον διορισμό μέλους του διοικητικού συμβουλίου επανεξέτασης | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

V   Γνωστοποιήσεις

ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ

Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα

2014/C 164A/01

Παράταση της προθεσμίας υποβολής αιτήσεων για τον διορισμό μέλους του διοικητικού συμβουλίου επανεξέτασης

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί

2

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

V Γνωστοποιήσεις

ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ

Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα

| 29.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 164/1

---

Παράταση της προθεσμίας υποβολής αιτήσεων για τον διορισμό μέλους του διοικητικού συμβουλίου επανεξέτασης

2014/C 164 A/01

Η ΕΚΤ ανακοινώνει ότι η προθεσμία υποβολής αιτήσεων βάσει της πρόσκλησης εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος για τον διορισμό εξωτερικών εμπειρογνωμόνων ως μελών και αναπληρωματικών μελών του διοικητικού συμβουλίου επανεξέτασης της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας (Φρανκφούρτη, Γερμανία), η οποία δημοσιεύτηκε στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης την 1η Μαΐου 2014 (1), παρατείνεται έως τις 2 Ιουνίου 2014.

Φρανκφούρτη, 23 Μαΐου 2014.

---

(1)  ΕΕ C 133 A της 1.5.2014, σ. 1.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 164/2

---

ΑΝΑΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΤΙΚΌΣ ΠΊΝΑΚΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΊΣΗΜΗΣ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΊΔΑΣ C A ΔΙΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΊ

2014/C 164 A/02

Κατωτέρω παρατίθεται πίνακας των τευχών της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A που δημοσιεύθηκαν το τρέχον έτος.

Εκτός αντίθετης ένδειξης, οι Επίσημες Εφημερίδες δημοσιεύονται σε όλες τις κοινοτικές γλώσσες.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
<PAGE>   1

Catalina Marketing Corporation
200 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

February 9, 2001

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525,
333-13335 and 333-86905, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2000,
which includes our report dated January 11, 2001, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


                           Arthur Andersen LLP