alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.35





 Exhibit 10.35 

FIFTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

(January 1, 2013 Restatement) 

WHEREAS, Fifth Third Bancorp (“Fifth Third”) sponsors and maintains the Fifth Third Bancorp Nonqualified Deferred
Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2013, as subsequently amended (“Plan”); 
 WHEREAS,
Fifth Third desires to amend the Plan to exclude MB Financial employees from participation in the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to
Plan section 15.1, Fifth Third reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time, and delegated authority to the Fifth Third Bank Pension, 401(k) and Medical Plan Committee and its Chairman to amend the Plan. 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 1, 2019, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects: 

1. Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended to add the following paragraph at the end: 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, an “MB Financial Employee” shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan. An MB Financial
Employee means an individual who is either (i) paid through the payroll system maintained by Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. or its affiliates (“Ceridian Payroll”) or (ii) an individual who, immediately prior to the closing of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among MB Financial, Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Financial Corporation, dated as of May 20, 2018 (the “MB Merger”) was employed by MB Financial, Inc. (“MB Financial”) or its
affiliates (determined in the same manner as an Affiliate, but with respect to MB Financial) (the “MB Affiliates”); provided, however, that any person who is terminated on or after the MB Merger and then is subsequently reemployed by an
Employer shall not be an MB Financial Employee unless paid through the Ceridian Payroll.” 
 2. Except as otherwise amended herein, the
Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative this 20th day of December 2018. 
  

			
	FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Chairperson for the Fifth Third Bank Pension, 401(k) and Medical Plan Committee
Christine MCGALLAGHER v. Hudson L. MCGALLAGHER

2160062

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Douglas Hernando DURAN and Alba Mery Salazar, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, P.A., and Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, for appellants.

Pearson Bitman LLP, and Allison Morat and Teris A. McGovern (Maitland), for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* *PNC Bank, N. A. v. Clark*, 211 So.3d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; *Ortiz v. PNC Bank, N. A.*, 188 So.3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; *Clay Cty. Land Tr. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.*, 152 So.3d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). *See also* *Rincon v. Bank of America, N.A.*, 206 So.3d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
#### Gregory Lynn GORDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Susan R. WHITE, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional Institution, North Carolina Department of Public Safety; George T. Solomon, Director of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6049

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

*162Gregory Lynn Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Gordon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gordon’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
K.C., Father of C.D., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-0712

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Edward Juan Lynum, of Lynum & Associates, PLLC, Wildwood, for Appellant.

Stephanie C. Zimmerman, of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The father, K.C., appeals the final judgment terminating his parental rights as to his five-year-old child, C.D. We only find merit in K.C.'s argument that the Department of Children and Families (the "Department") failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that K.C.'s parental rights should be terminated under section 39.806(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016), for abandoning the minor child, and section 39.806(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for engaging in conduct toward the child that demonstrates that his continuing involvement in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, physical, mental and emotional health of the child irrespective of services. *See**S.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.*, 202 So.3d 769, 776 (Fla. 2016) (reiterating that trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more grounds for termination have been established).

Even so, we affirm the final judgment because the trial court's termination of K.C.'s parental rights based on section 39.806(1)(e) 1., Florida Statutes (2016), is supported by clear and convincing evidence. *See**D.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.,*211 So.3d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing *M.D. v. State*, 187 So.3d 1275, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[S]o long as the trial court's ruling on one of the statutory grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes, is supported by the evidence, the court's decision [to terminate parental rights] is affirmable.") ). We agree with the trial court that the Department presented clear and convincing evidence that the termination of parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the minor child and that it is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment terminating K.C.'s parental rights to C.D., but we remand with directions for the entry of an amended final judgment striking any language from the judgment regarding sections 39.806(1)(b) and (1)(c) as grounds for the termination of the parental rights.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John
J. Gavin, Jr., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

Date: October 26, 2006                         By: /s/ John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6575

MICHAEL E. GARNER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:18

- cv - 00560

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : February 14, 2022 Decided: February 24, 2022

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael E. Garner , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael E. Garner seeks t o appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the dist rict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rul ing is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garner’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 383 -CV Ra lst on O ut doo rAdv e r ti sing , Lt d. , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Transp ortat ion , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0021 19 , HO NORAB LE SCO TT H. JENK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Ral s t o n Outdoor Adve rtising, Ltd. has filed an unoppose d motion to dismi ss this appeal. Ac cording ly , we grant the m o t i o n t o dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: January

17, 2008
Peter S. REILLY, Appellant, v. Lori MCKINLEY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2815

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

Peter S. Reilly, Orlando, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RONALD CARL BURCHAM, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4916

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 22, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Thomas P. Barber, 

Judge.

Ronald Carl Burcham, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit
      32


Section
      1350 Certifications




**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


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




The
      undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer or Principal Accounting
      Officer of Thorium Power, Ltd. This Certification is made pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K/A of Thorium Power, Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
      2007.




The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-K/A Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thorium
      Power, Ltd. as of December 31, 2007.




This
      Certification is executed as of April 30, 2008.






*By: 
      /s/ Seth Grae*


*Name:
      Seth Grae*


*Title:
      President, Chief Executive Officer and Director*


*(Principal
      Executive Officer)*






*By: 
      /s/ James Guerra*


*Name:
      James Guerra*


*Title:
      Chief Financial Officer*


*(Principal
      Financial Officer)*






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Thorium Power Ltd. and will be retained by Thorium Power and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John S. STRITZINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; Norwood Police Department; Enterprise Rental Car; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Dollar Rent A Car, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1544

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his complaint for failing to comply with a court order. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Stritzinger’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Stritzinger has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, although we grant Stritzinger leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Micah C. Foster, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment #1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.; and





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, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: April 29, 2022/s/ Micah C. FosterMicah C. FosterChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
Paul Nicholas MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1710

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Roden, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 123]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered June 10, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough inquiry, the court properly proceeded with the trial in defendant’s absence since defendant forfeited his right to be present *(see People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436 [1985]). Defendant was present when the prosecutor and defense counsel announced their readiness for trial, and the court told everyone that they were “on trial,” awaiting assignment to a courtroom that would be available shortly. The next day, when a courtroom became available, defendant did not appear, and defense counsel advised the court that defendant had been in his office the previous day and knew that he was required to be in court.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/25/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the 7th Enlightenment Luncheon organized by 

Mothers and Others for Clean Air 

SUMMARY: 

EPA R4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the 7th 

Enlightenment Luncheon organized by Mothers and Others for Clean Air (a program of the American 

Lung Association in Georgia) in Atlanta, GA, on October 3, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Heather McTeer Toney/EPA R4

Bryan Myers/EPA R4

Brandi Jenkins/EPA R4

Jayvone Hick-White/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Dr. Marshall Shepherd/University of GA Atmospheric Sciences Program

Dr. George Luber/CDC

LeRoy M. Graham, Jr./Georgia Pediatric Pulmonology Associates, PC

Sam Champion/The Weather Channel

Laura Turner-Seydel/Turner Foundation

Stephanie Blank/Arthur Blank Foundation

Approximately 200 additional participants
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
-S. The total rooeipta &poclftod to the 

aoiler Inapeotlon mnd during the period from 

June 25, 1937 thm@ June S, X986 uu $88,8b9.84. 

Thue dep c mit l otw.lly a bo@a in Septmaber 1957. 

“a. The total of nrmnte lhed agalnat 

th, Bollor Iwpwtlon Pun& durlag the tirrt year 

(6-3-57 through S-S-56) ns #M,TM.98, lama balanw at t&t Plato -of #Ut,lS&.Ob. It is ire 

poosiblo to dokralne the mt of out8tmdlo( 

oblQation8 uhioh mre 8ub88qwntlJ wlcl, from 

this b81anao. 

"4. Ou Ao&uat 8, 1936 Oh. Trnwru uaa authorlzod to trrwtu the ma ot $~0,000.09 famm. 

the Boilor Iaspaotlon hurd to tha Qononl Jtovmeo 

lhud. m oth8r t-rem hare bun aade. 
Ronorablo 900. H. Shopperd, paga S 

ondlng ~10,000.00 18 to be oarrled rorward for 

the purpose or wfoxomaerlt 0r the Aot. 

4. Any amount rwaining la th0 rwd in OX0088 of #10,000.00 at the 01080 of any fl8oel 

year l ftu lose *hall rout to tha oeneral RsvMW rune or th8 state or ~0x68. 

.Awording to the lnfornvtion you hare furnI8h.d 

UI, the whole of the $19,97S.bZ dl&araod from the )RO,OOO 

O8niral Rerenuo Appropriation rhould hwa been refiaeed. 

Youwill note, homer, that while tha bgl8latoxw proridl d for tha r*plao-t of 8uah upandltcme8 it ax80 protldad~ that oaly too8 oelloakd during the fimt year'8 

opention of the Act 8hould be available for 8uoh u8a. ?ez! 

this roamon the baUnoo In tha Bollor Inspaotlon Fund a8 

0r *uguat 51, iota, the one or tat3 rim il8wi par, l8 

unimportant l x o epthat t it mbnoo8 and Inolude8 the balanw on hand a8 of June 8, 1938, the end of.th8 flr8t 7ur’a 

o~ntlon of the Aot. 

The balaneo on hand In tb SoIlor Ia8paatIon Fund 

on am@ s, 19JB, ra‘ $lle,lS4.86, Mb the who10 of thl‘ ‘mount 

8hoaldhwe beontran8?emdtotho wnerall?eveauo mnd.oa 

A8@8t 8 1938, ~io,~&o Of thi8 baMO@ -8 80 tMM?UMd, 

loa~IagJ6~lS4.86 In the go~orIru~otlonPIlndrhloh*horrlb 

&ro km l ppllod to tha ciumnl Rorenqa ApproprIatl&n, 

fnbothyourl~ttero? Septrnkr8 andthato? 

Sogtwtmr Zy youpolnt~~tthatth~ balum lathe nooiler 

In8pootlon ma at tha ol.00~ of the flmal *ar l ndbng 

August 8, 19S8, n8 #4,990.61 au4 it appear8 thud ham 

nwor bun a lasrrer amotmt la this lhnd than the ballaaoo 

l ppearla& on Au&&et 8l. 1938. 

It 18 the opinion of thIa.lMpartaont thut the 891~ 

0r $&lSL$b, 1088 the total amouut of all rasrauta *loR 

hwe booa paid and wen 188tmd iOr ol~iu arlelng prier to 

June S, lQSS, #hould be tranafomd fmm the Boiler IM~OOtion Bin&l to the Gweral R6TMw Fund in l eoordenoe with the 

MqU.hUWk e? SeOtiOI8 18 Of EOtk80 Sill SS8, AOt8 Of thO 

46th Lo(Li8latux-o.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chromcraft Revington, 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, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, 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 periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and 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 within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant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 over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 12, 2007
    /s/ Benjamin M. Anderson-RayBenjamin M. Anderson-RayChairman and Chief Executive Officer