alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-2471

___________________________ Kelly Rottinghaus, Administratrix of the Estate of Darryl Vance Parker, Deceased lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v. Michael Neal, Individually and in His Offi cial Capacity as an Arkansas Game and Fish Law Enforcement Officer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Ryan Hollowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Arkansas Game and Fish Law Enforcement Officer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Jason Martin, Individually and in His Offici al Capacity as an Arkansas State Trooper lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________ Submitted: March 12, 2015 Filed: March 13, 2015 [Unpublished]

____________Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Kelly Rottinghaus appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in he r 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which she filed as the administratrix of the estate of Darryl Vance Parker. After careful de novo review, see Loch v. City of Litchfield , 689 F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted, seePartlow v. Stadler , 774 F.3d 497, 502–03 (8th Cir. 2014); Gladden v. Richbourg , 759 F.3d 960, 969 (8th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the District Court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Brian S. M iller, Chief Judge, United St ates District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $8.72 CWT 0.965 $8.41

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.7412 LB 3.5 $9.59

Class I Price $18.01

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $10.47 CWT 0.965 $10.10

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.7059 LB 3.5 $9.47

Class I Price $19.57

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT (1.57)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.13)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.07)

Price change per quart ($0.03)

Price change per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price change per half pint ($0.01)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon (128-oz) ($0.13)

Price adjustment per half gallon (64-oz) ($0.07)

Price adjustment per quart (32-oz) ($0.03)

Price adjustment per pint (16oz) ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint (8-oz) ($0.01)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: June 4th, 2023
No. 09-9056.

#### In re Roderick Troy Prudhomme, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1004, 130 S. Ct. 1920,

176 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2354.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 09-8985.

#### Cedric Rose, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1019, 130 S. Ct. 1915,

176 L. Ed. 2d 387,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2414.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 587 F.3d 695.
No. 09-7951.

#### Lisa J. Henry, Petitioner v. Ohio.

559 U.S. 946, 130 S. Ct. 1519,

176 L. Ed. 2d 125,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1288.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Lake County, denied.

Same case below, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1481, 910 N.E.2d 479.
Swanson, Brian (OST) tXK'-O^ ' 2x>00 - ^^"^5 

From: Kimberly Tice [kimtice@gmail.com] . r i -CHIT n^ 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:49 PM ,.! L-1'^J^^lL>\', 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); EAS (OST) ;! l::>:;'^Jj;l[5\ij^: 

Subject: Answer to Pacific Wings' Petition for Reconsideration LI LIL I i/\l lU 

To Whom it May Concern, 

I am writing to oppose Pacific Wings' petition to reconsider Order 2011-11-27, in which 

Makani Kai Air Charters was selected to provide subsidized Essential Air Service at 

Kalaupapa, Hawaii. I am an employee resident at Kalaupapa, and I believe Makani Kai 

was rightly awarded the EAS subsidy, and since receiving the subsidy, have been of great 

service to the Kalaupapa community. The reasonable fares provided by Makani Kai make 

it feasible to fly to Honolulu for doctor's appointments and other necessary chores, which 

was an incredible financial burden when Pacific Wings was the only carrier flying out of 

the settlement (and charging round trip fares of $500). Makani Kai has also been 

extremely accomodating for the Hansen's disease patients in the community, and have 

worked closely with the community to provide the services we require. This was not the 

case when Pacific Wings was the only airline servicing the community, when many 

residents felt trapped by exorbitant airfares and unaccommodating customer service. 

Along with Makani Kai, Pacific Wings was also able to apply for the EAS subsidy. 

However, through that exhaustive process, and after much research on the part of the 

DOT, Makani Kai was chosen over all the other airlines. In the time they have been 

operating, they have proven themselves more than worthy of the subsidy with their 

excellent customer service, resonable prices, and attention to the needs of the community. 

I believe there is no reason to reconsider the decision to award the EAS subsidy to 

Makani Kai airlines. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Kimberly A. Tice 

PO Box 128 

Kalaupapa, HI 96742 

:l '>b ^ I- 28
No. 09-9098.

#### Jaime Torres, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1022, 130 S. Ct. 1922,

176 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2470.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 346 Fed. Appx. 983.
EXHIBIT 12.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Healthcare Technologies Ltd. on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Moshe Reuveni, Chief
Executive Officer of Healthcare Technologies Ltd., 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 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 Healthcare
Technologies Ltd.

                                         HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

                                         By: /S/ MOSHE REUVENI
                                         Moshe Reuveni
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 5, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers United 
States City Average

    Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 amendments to the Federal 
Election Campaign Act (Pub. L. 94-283, 2 U.S.C. 441a (c)(1)-(2), the 
Secretary of Labor has certified to the Chairman of the Federal 
Election Commission and publishes this notice in the Federal Register 
that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for 
All Urban Consumers (1967=100) increased 365.6 percent from its 1974 
annual average of 147.7 to its 2012 annual average of 687.761 and that 
it increased 29.7 percent from its 2001 annual average of 530.4 to its 
2012 annual average of 687.761. Using 1974 as a base (1974=100), I 
certify that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers thus increased 365.6 percent from its 
1974 annual average of 100 to its 2012 annual average of 465.647. Using 
2001 as a base (2001=100), I certify that the United States City 
Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
increased 29.7 percent from its 2001 annual average of 100 to its 2012 
annual average of 129.668. Using 2006 as a base (2006=100), I certify 
that the CPI increased 13.9 percent from its 2006 annual average of 100 
to its 2012 annual average of 113.887.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on 21 day of May 2013.
Seth D. Harris,
Acting Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2013-13750 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
(1) Adjusting Price $17.35 CWT

(2) Base Price $18.15 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.80)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0688)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0344)

Price change per quart ($0.0172)

Price change per pint ($0.0086)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0064)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0054)

Price change per half pint ($0.0043)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.07)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.03)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.02)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: Nov. 4, 2018
No. 09-8575.

#### Charles Edward Scott, Petitioner v. Alabama.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1893,

176 L. Ed. 2d 375,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2749.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 57 So. 3d 206.
EXHIBIT 12.4


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Eran Rotem, certify that:

     2. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS ANNUAL 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 ANNUAL
REPORT;

     3. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS ANNUAL 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 ANNUAL REPORT;

     4. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICERS AND I ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (AS DEFINED IN
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14) FOR THE REGISTRANT AND HAVE:

     A) DESIGNED SUCH DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES 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 ANNUAL REPORT IS BEING
     PREPARED;

     B) EVALUATED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGISTRANT'S DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND
     PROCEDURES AS OF A DATE WITHIN 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FILING DATE OF THIS
     ANNUAL REPORT (THE "EVALUATION DATE"); AND

     C) PRESENTED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
     OF THE DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES BASED ON OUR EVALUATION AS OF THE
     EVALUATION DATE;

     5. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICERS AND I HAVE DISCLOSED, BASED
ON OUR MOST RECENT EVALUATION, TO THE REGISTRANT'S AUDITORS AND THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE OF REGISTRANT'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS (OR PERSONS PERFORMING THE
EQUIVALENT FUNCTION):

     A) ALL SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN THE DESIGN OR OPERATION OF INTERNAL
     CONTROLS WHICH COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE REGISTRANT'S ABILITY TO RECORD,
     PROCESS, SUMMARIZE AND REPORT FINANCIAL DATA AND HAVE IDENTIFIED FOR THE
     REGISTRANT'S AUDITORS ANY MATERIAL WEAKNESSES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS; AND

     B) ANY FRAUD, WHETHER OR NOT MATERIAL, THAT INVOLVES MANAGEMENT OR OTHER
     EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL
     CONTROLS; AND

     6 THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICERS AND I HAVE INDICATED IN THIS
ANNUAL REPORT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
OR IN OTHER FACTORS THAT COULD SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT INTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DATE OF OUR MOST RECENT EVALUATION, INCLUDING ANY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WITH
REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES AND MATERIAL WEAKNESSES.


Date:  August 5, 2003
                                            /S/ ERAN ROTEM
                                            Eran Rotem
                                            Chief Financial Officer
Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here, 

the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony 

from Draw's trial counsel. Draw did not testify at the evidentiary hearing 

and he did not call his appellate counsel to testify. The district court 

found that Draw failed to demonstrate that trial counsel's representation 

was deficient or prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 

1107 (1996); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 

1388, 1408 (2011) ("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy 

task." (quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). The district court 

also determined that appellate counsel was not ineffective. See Kirksey, 

112 Nev. at 998, 923 P.2d at 1113-14. We conclude that the district court's 

findings are supported by substantial evidence, see Riley v. State, 110 Nev. 

638, 647, 878 P.2d 272, 278 (1994), and the district court did not err by 

rejecting Draw's ineffective-assistance claims. 

Draw also contends that the district court erred by denying 

the claims raised in his initial pro se petitions. Draw claims that his due 

process rights were violated (1) by missing transcripts and the alleged 

destruction of preliminary hearing and calendar call transcripts by a court 

reporter, (2) by counsel's failure to investigate and prepare for trial, and 

(3) because he is actually innocent. Draw, however, offers no argument 

with the requisite factual specificity or citation to any relevant legal 

authority in support of these claims, therefore, we need not address them. 

See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Gibbons Pickering 

J. 

Nevertheless, based on our review of the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not err by rejecting these claims. See Lader, 121 Nev. at 

686, 120 P.3d at 1166; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88; Kirksey, 112 

Nev. at 987, 998, 923 P.2d at 1107, 1113-14. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Christopher R. Oram 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e
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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas R. Gulling, Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc.,
      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;
      (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of West
      Bancorporation, Inc.




August
      3,
      2007




/s/
              Douglas R.
              GullingDouglas
                R. Gulling
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>						<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>				12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>			 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>			 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>		          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>				                	$ 1,001
<SECURITIES>				                 0
<RECEIVABLES>			            15,000
<ALLOWANCES>			                  0
<INVENTORY>				                896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>	  	       	16,897
<PP&E>		         		         82,202
<DEPRECIATION>			    	      56,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>			          103,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>      486,283
<BONDS>					                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			         0
<PREFERRED>					                 0
<COMMON>				             1,192,325
<OTHER-SE>					                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  (103,006)
<SALES>				                     50,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>				            50,717
<CGS>				                     		13,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>			               256,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>	            			     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>			           (244,840)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>		           (28,775)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (244,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (244,840)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                  (244,840)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.08)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1483

KISHA MARIE DAVIS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Physicians MUSC-P,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate

Judge. (2:14-cv-03152-MGB)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kisha Marie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Andreas Neal Satterfield, 

Jr., John Sulau, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kisha Marie Davis appeals the magistrate judge’s* order 

granting Medical University of South Carolina summary judgment 

on her claims, brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave 

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2012), the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 

U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016), and Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 

to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Davis’ application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by 

the magistrate judge. See Davis v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No. 

2:14-cv-03152-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016). 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

 * The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**OFFICERCERTIFICATION**

 

I, Thomas P. Friezen, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc.;

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: December 15, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas P. Friezen   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas P. Friezen       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----