alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

REAPPOINTMENT TO THE

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW

EXAMINERS :

:

:

:

: NO. 826

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15 th day of January , 2020, Kezia O. L. Taylor, Esquire, Allegheny

County, is hereby reappointed as a member of the Penns ylvania Board of Law Examiners

for a term of three years, commencing April 1, 2020.
Harold HOLDREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### Judith Yaccarino, Respondent, v Sherwood Medical, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 168]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the de*563fendant Sherwood Medical appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated July 29, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability and for a new trial.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to hear and report in accordance herewith, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical technician, commenced this action alleging that she sustained personal injuries while in the course of her employment as the result of the repetitive and cumulative stress incurred in opening disposable syringe containers which were alleged to have been defectively packaged by the defendant. Upon the conclusion of the trial, one of the exhibits provided to the jury was a box of sealed syringes. The box was utilized solely to demonstrate the warning label supplied by the defendant.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability. Without holding a hearing, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict due to juror misconduct *(see*CPLR 4404 [a]). The court found that “upon return of the box, it was discovered that the jurors had broken each of the seals on all of the syringes within the box” and that such behavior “in essence, constitute [d] an experiment conducted by the jurors to ascertain the difficulty in opening a syringe.”

The Supreme Court’s determination was, however, entirely premised upon hearsay. Since no hearing was held, the record is devoid of any admissible evidence as to this issue and we therefore are unable to determine precisely what transpired.

Accordingly, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to hear and report in accordance herewith and the appeal will be held in abeyance pending receipt of the Supreme Court’s report. Goldstein, J.P., Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6335 

To require the Bureau of the Census to collect information on citizenship 

status through the decennial census, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. EDWARDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To require the Bureau of the Census to collect information 

on citizenship status through the decennial census, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Voter Population Accu5 racy Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON DECENNIAL CENSUS. 

7 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub10 section (h); and 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6335 IH

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(g) In conducting the 2030 decennial census and 

4 each decennial census thereafter, the Secretary shall in5 clude in any questionnaire distributed or otherwise used 

6 for the purpose of determining the total population by 

7 States a checkbox or other similar option for the respond8 ent to indicate, for the respondent and for each of the 

9 members of the household of the respondent, whether such 

10 individual is a citizen or national of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Chad Lamont WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent-Appellee. Chad Lamont Williams, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David Mitchell, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6143, No. 17-6228

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 12, 2017

Decided: May 18, 2017

Chad Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chad Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Williams’ requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeals. 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*
# Euroopan unionin C 134A/3. t

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 134A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 57. vuosikerta3. toukokuu 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 134A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

57. vuosikerta3. toukokuu 2014

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Hallintovirkamiehet (AD 7) seuraavilla erikoisaloilla: 1. Digitaalinen forensiikka 2. Operatiivinen analyysi — (Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 88 A, 27. maaliskuuta 2014) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2014/C 134A/01

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Hallintovirkamiehet (AD 7) seuraavilla erikoisaloilla: 1. Digitaalinen forensiikka 2. Operatiivinen analyysi — (Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 88 A, 27. maaliskuuta 2014)

(Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 88 A, 27. maaliskuuta 2014)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Luettelo EUVL:n C A -sarjassa julkaistuista kilpailuista | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Luettelo EUVL:n C A -sarjassa julkaistuista kilpailuista

2

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 3.5.2014 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 134/1

---

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta

EPSO/AD/278/14 – HALLINTOVIRKAMIEHET (AD 7)

seuraavilla erikoisaloilla:

| 1. | DIGITAALINEN FORENSIIKKA |
| --- | --- |

1.

DIGITAALINEN FORENSIIKKA

| 2. | OPERATIIVINEN ANALYYSI |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPERATIIVINEN ANALYYSI

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 88 A, 27. maaliskuuta 2014
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

Sivulla 7, VIII luvun 1 kohdassa:

on:

Määräaika (validointi mukaan lukien): 29. huhtikuuta 2014 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa.

pitää olla:

Määräaika (validointi mukaan lukien): 6. toukokuuta 2014 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa.

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 134/2

---

LUETTELO EUVL:N C A -SARJASSA JULKAISTUISTA KILPAILUISTA

2014/C 134 A/02

Jäljempänä luettelo kuluvana vuonna julkaistuista C A -lehdistä.

Mikäli toisin ei mainita, EUVL on julkaistu kaikkina kieliversioina.

| 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 | |

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

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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

May 10, 2013

s0507

Order 

May 10, 2013

146965

SC: 146965

In re BROCKITT, Minors. COA: 311097

Sanilac CC Family Division:

11-035529-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2013 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

33 

CA 11-01598 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

ALBERT G. FRACCOLA, JR. AND PLAYTIME 

BOUTIQUE, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

PHYLLIS FRACCOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SOLE 

SHAREHOLDER OF HYDRANIA, INC., AND HYDRANIA, INC., 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

ALBERT G. FRACCOLA, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

FELT EVANS, LLP, CLINTON (JAY G. WILLIAMS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel

D. Hester, J.), entered May 18, 2011. The order, among other things,

granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### William C. Bush, Respondent, *v.*The Rochester City Bank et al., Appellants.

(Argued May 18, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

Action to foreclose mortgage made by James M. Demarest to Horace F. Bush, and assigned to plaintiff. At the same time the mortgage was executed, Bush executed another mortgage to the Rochester City Bank. The bank foreclosed its mortgage, bid in the property and conveyed it by quitclaim deed to defendants Campbell and Clark. The bank, and Campbell and Clark, put in answers, claiming the bank mortgage was to have priority. The court found it had no priority, but that there was an equality of lien, and ordered sale for the payment of both mortgages. The bank only appealed. *Held,*that the bank had no interests affected by the judgment, and had therefore no right to appeal.

*James L. Angle*for the appellants.

*James 0. Cochrane*for the respondent.

Gbay, Hunt? and Eakl, CC., read for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita,
Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Chloe DiVita
(Name and Title)                      Chloe DiVita,
                                      Treasurer, Secretary, Director
                                      and Chief Financial Officer

(Date)                                November 12, 2010






                                       16


                                  End of Filing
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Trevor Mark Anthony Rigg, Admitted on June 13, 1989, at a Term of the Appellate Division, First Department.

[772 NYS2d 805]

Order of suspension entered May 6, 1999 (257 AD2d 127), recalled and vacated. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements dated September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              937,000
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    16,243,000
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,074,000
<INVENTORY>                      21,511,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 37,910,000
<PP&E>                           24,492,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   15,655,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   47,364,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            44,004,000
<BONDS>                           1,437,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             55,000
<OTHER-SE>                       (2,507,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     47,364,000
<SALES>                          34,592,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 34,592,000
<CGS>                            31,619,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     8,822,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (68,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,908,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (7,689,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                         91,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (7,780,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (7,780,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.54)

<FN>
*     Dollar amounts are based on conversion rate of 1,819 Lire to the Dollar
      which prevailed on September 30, 1999
</FN>


</TABLE>
# **Exhibit 31.1**

# ** **

## **Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Norman D. Smith, certify that:

 

1.   Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zamba Corporation;

 

2.   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2003                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Norman D. Smith                   |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Ernesto Wilfredo Solano GODOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-7531

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy, Appellant Pro Se.

Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ernesto Wilfredo Solano Godoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 *165prisoner 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 Godoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER FORM 10-Q OF VANSTAR GROUP, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED APRIL 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,100
<INVENTORY>                                    231,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               563,113
<PP&E>                                         115,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 781,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          425,608
<BONDS>                                            581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          194,915
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   781,682
<SALES>                                      1,019,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,258,557
<CGS>                                          933,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,077,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (52,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (9,042)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (43,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (48,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.11)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Dale McKinney,
        Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.

















Date:
                May 5, 2006
            By:/s/
                R. Dale McKinneyR.
                Dale McKinneyChief
                Financial Officer