alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Yvonne PINKARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.L. NUSBAUM; Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy P.C.; Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, NRHA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1182

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 19, 2017

*207Yvonne Pinkard, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Cromwell, SYKES, BOUR-DON, AHERN & LEVY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; David Caldwell Hartnett, CRENSHAW WARE & MARTIN, PLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees,

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yvonne Pinkard appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing her complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Pinkard v. S.L. Nusbaum,*No. 2:16-cv-00625-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 20, 2017 & entered Jan. 23, 2017). 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*
SECOND DIVISION

MILLER, P. J.,

RICKMAN, P. J., and REESE, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN

THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.

June 8, 2021

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A19A0848. CLOUTHIER v. THE MEDICAL CENTER OF

CENTRAL GEORGIA, INC.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

In Clouthier v. The Med. Center of Central Ga., Inc., 351 Ga. App. 883 (833

SE2d 584) (2019), we reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Francis Clouthier’s

complaint against the Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc. The Supreme Court of

Georgia subsequently vacated our decision and remanded the case for reconsideration

in light of Bowden v. The Med. Center, Inc., 309 Ga. 188, 202 (II) (2) (b) (845 SE2d

555) (2020). See The Med. Center of Central Ga., Inc. v. Clouthier, Case No.

S19C0326 (decided August 10, 2020). 

The Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc., has filed a consent motion

requesting that we remand the instant case to the trial court because the parties have
reached an agreement whereby their dispute will be resolved. According to the

motion, Clouthier agrees to this disposition. Given this pending consent motion, the

judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for

the parties to effectuate the agreement. See Petty v. Petty, 227 Ga. 521 (1) (181 SE2d

859) (1971) (reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding for the parties’

“agreement [to] be filed in order to permit the agreed disposition of the case”);

Barnett v. Moss, 98 Ga. App. 581 (106 SE2d 60) (1958) (reversing for the parties “to

carry out[their] compromise agreement”);see alsoCharter HR, Inc. v. Perry, 320 Ga.

App. 315 (739 SE2d 770) (2013) (reversing where the parties filed a consent motion

to remand to allow them to seek the State Board of Workers’ Compensation’s

approval of a settlement agreement). 

Judgment reversed and case remanded. Rickman, P.J., and Reese, J., concur.

2
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 on Form 10-KSB of Genesis Bioventures,
Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  each  of the undersigned 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;  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/ E.  Greg  McCartney
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         E.  Greg  McCartney
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                         Dated: April 14, 2004


                                                         /s/ T.J. Louis McKinney
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         T.J.  Louis  McKinney
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

                                                         Dated: April 14, 2004


                                     E - 77
<PAGE>
Emma CASALE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4911

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.10





The following current executive officers have entered into Executive Severance Agreements with the Company in the form filed herewith. The information listed below is inserted into the blanks for the respective executive officer’s Executive Severance Agreement.
	
							
	 
	 
	Salary Multiplier Rate
	 
	Termination Period
	 
	Change of Control
Continuation Period

	 
	 
	(Section 4(a)(4))
	 
	(Section 1(n))
	 
	(Section 2)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Kyle Hanson
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Michael Jeppesen
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Amy M. Klimek
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Todd Spaletto
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Michael D. Stornant
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Richard J. Woodworth
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months
#### Clarence Andrew MCGUFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1288

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 15, 2017

Decided: September 26, 2017

*248Clarence Andrew McGuffin, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Andrew McGuffin appeals the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss McGufiin’s complaint as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McGuffin v. Berryhill,*No. 5:16-cv-00467-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, 2017). 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*
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics, Inc.
      (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the filing
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2007 (the “Report”). The
      undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      November 7, 2007





/s/
                Brion UmidiName:  Brion
                UmidiTitle:  *Chief
                Financial Officer*
Dennis O'ROURKE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0322

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
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 INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Stacy Josloff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:



| | (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/ Stacy Josloff                               
|Stacy Josloff                                   
|Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
|November 15, 2010                               

A signed original of this
certification 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.
Jose Manuel CRUZ, Appellant, v. Alma KORSHAK, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
TED DARNELL HARVIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1409

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Ted Darnell Harvin, pro se, Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 24-40028 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Franco Aniel Vargas-Martinez, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-283-1

______________________________ Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Franco Aniel Vargas-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vargas-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’ s brief and the rele vant portions of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 26, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-40028 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2024No. 24-40028

2 the record reflected therein. We conc ur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issu e for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilitie s herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 24-40028 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2024
Exhibit 10.13Description of Arrangement for Directors FeesThe following sets forth the amount of annual fees payable (excluding representation expenses) toeach non-employee director of W Holding Company, Inc. (except for directors who receive benefitsfrom any retirement plan), for their services as Directors in fiscal year 2005:   Event FeesAnnual Retainer:     For those Directors withparticipation in less than threeboard of Directors committees. $24,000 annually, payableon a monthly basis ($2,000).   For those Directors withparticipation in more than threeBoard of Directors committees. $42,000 annually, payableon a monthly basis ($3,500).   Secretary of the Board ofDirectors $18,000 annually, payable on a monthlybasis ($1,500) for being a Director ofthe Board of Directors. Also, theSecretary of the Board of Directorsreceives an additional retainer of $6,720annually, payable on a monthly basis($560) for his (her) position asSecretary of the Board.   Chairman of the Audit Committeeand Financial Expert $36,000 annually, payable on a monthlybasis ($3,000).W Holding Company, Inc. may also reimburse Directors for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred inconnection with attendance at meetings of and other activities relating to service on the Board ofDirectors or any Board of Directors committee.
John M. BARONE, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a Corporation a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Lending, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
J.M., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4211

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Torian GAITHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David ZOOK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6323

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Torian Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kiernan Fitzgerald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Torian Gaither seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the amended recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gaither’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaither has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gaither’s motion for a transcript at government expense, deny a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade*89quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6063 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Social Security Act 

to provide that an individual engaged in a labor dispute may receive 

unemployment benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mr. NORCROSS, Ms. ADAMS, 

Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. BOWMAN, Ms. BUDZINSKI, Mr. CASAR, Mr. 

CLEAVER, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DELUZIO, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mrs. 

FOUSHEE, Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Mr. 

GOLDMAN of New York, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. GREEN of 

Texas, Ms. HOYLE of Oregon, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. LEE of 

California, Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, Mr. MAGAZINER, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. 

NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Ms. OMAR, Mr. POCAN, Ms. PORTER, Ms. 

PRESSLEY, Mrs. RAMIREZ, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SOTO, Mr. 

THANEDAR, Ms. TITUS, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. TOKUDA, Mr. TRONE, Mr. 

VARGAS, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Social 

Security Act to provide that an individual engaged in 

a labor dispute may receive unemployment benefits. 

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

2 

•HR 6063 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Empowering Striking 

3 Workers Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR STRIKING WORK5 ERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3304(a) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

8 the end of paragraph (18), by striking the period at the 

9 end of paragraph (19) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by add10 ing at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(20) in the case of an individual who is em12 ployed but unable to work due to a labor dispute (as 

13 defined in section 2(5) of the National Labor Rela14 tions Act (29 U.S.C. 152(5)), including an indi15 vidual unable to work as an indirect result of such 

16 a labor dispute, compensation is payable to such in17 dividual as though such individual were unemployed 

18 beginning on the date that is the earlier of— 

19 ‘‘(A) the date that is 14 days after the 

20 date on which a strike began; 

21 ‘‘(B) the date on which a lock-out began; 

22 ‘‘(C) the date on which the employer hired 

23 permanent replacement workers; or 

24 ‘‘(D) the date on which the strike or lock25 out ended and the individual became unem26 ployed.’’. 

3 

•HR 6063 IH

1 (b) EXEMPTION FROM WORK AVAILABILITY RE2 QUIREMENT.—Section 303(a)(12) of the Social Security 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 503(a)(12)) is amended by inserting 

4 ‘‘(other than a claimant who is an individual unable to 

5 work due to a labor dispute as described in section 

6 3304(a)(20) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)’’ after 

7 ‘‘claimant’’. 

Æ
Julian Armond SANDERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Michael JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Joey A. GRIZZELL

1160257 (CR-15-1253)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

2-10-2017

Cert. denied.
#### Fredicia HARDNETT; Wilbert A. Hardnett, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M & T BANK; Atlantic Law Group; John Doe 1-10; Jane Doe 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1538

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Fredicia Hardnett, Wilbert A. Hardnett, Appellants Pro Se. Robert Miltz Luck, III, REED SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees,

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fredicia Hardnett and Wilbert A. Hard-nett appeal the district court’s" order dismissing their suit and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hardnett v. M & T Bank,*No. 3:15-cv-00622-MHL (E.D. Va. Aug. 31 & Sept. 19, 2016; Apr. 13, 2017). 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos REYES, a/k/a Edwardo Ocasio, a/k/a Edwardo Gomez, a/k/a Pedro Reyes-Lopez, a/k/a Pedro Carlos Manuel Reyes-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7042

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Carlos Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and' TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Reyes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Reyes is not eligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines does not lower his Guidelines range.* See § 3582(c)(2); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2012), USSG App. C Amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

 To the extent Reyes’ motion challenged the drug amount attributed to him at sentencing, such claim is not properly raised in a § 3582 motion. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that § 3582 proceeding is "not considered a full resen-tencing by the court”).
**Exhibit
      24.5**





STATE
      OF
      TEXAS            
§


COUNTY
      OF
      DALLAS      §





POWER
      OF
      ATTORNEY





Know
      all
      men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM M. SAMS, a Director of AMERICA’S
      CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint TILMAN J.
      FALGOUT, III and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact,
      with
      full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007
      and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National
      Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto
      and
      other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my
      stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report,
      incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact deem appropriate, hereby
      ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute
      or
      substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





In
      witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 13th day of
      July,
      2007.








/s/
      William M.
      Sams


WILLIAM
      M. SAMS











ACKNOWLEDGMENT





Before
      me
      this 13th day
      of July, 2007, came WILLIAM M. SAMS, personally known to me, who in my presence
      did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged
      the
      same as his true act and deed.








/s/
      Mary Sellner
      Thomas


NOTARY
      PUBLIC