alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF JULIE DEAN
**Certification of Periodic Report**
      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diversified Thermal Solutions,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Julie Dean, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. /s/ Julie DeanJulie Dean
# L_2005037DE.01002201.xml

| 10.2.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 37/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 37/22

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 der Kommission vom 21. April 2004 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Einhaltung anderweitiger Verpflichtungen, zur Modulation und zum Integrierten Verwaltungs- und Kontrollsystem nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 des Rates mit gemeinsamen Regeln für Direktzahlungen im Rahmen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik und mit bestimmten Stützungsregelungen für Inhaber landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 141 vom 30. April 2004
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 141 vom 30. April 2004

Seite 26, Artikel 3 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 1:

anstatt:

„Unbeschadet der in Artikel 5 Absatz 2 Unterabsatz 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 vorgesehenen Ausnahmen stellen die Mitgliedstaaten gemäß Absatz 1 desselben Artikels sicher, dass das Verhältnis von als Dauergrünland genutzten Flächen zu der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche im Sinne der Definition gemäß Artikel 2 Buchstabe (a) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 erhalten bleibt. Diese Verpflichtung findet auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene Anwendung.“

muss es heißen:

„Unbeschadet der in Artikel 5 Absatz 2 Unterabsatz 3 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 vorgesehenen Ausnahmen stellen die Mitgliedstaaten gemäß Absatz 1 desselben Artikels sicher, dass das Verhältnis von als Dauergrünland genutzten Flächen zu der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche im Sinne der Definition gemäß Artikel 2 Buchstabe a) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 795/2004 der Kommission (1) erhalten bleibt. Diese Verpflichtung findet auf nationaler oder regionaler Ebene Anwendung.“

Seite 29, Artikel 11 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 2 Satz 1:

anstatt:

„Ein Betriebsinhaber, der keine Beihilfe im Rahmen einer flächenbezogenen Beihilferegelung, aber eine Beihilfe im Rahmen einer anderen in Anhang I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 aufgeführten Beihilferegelung beantragt, muss einen Sammelantrag einreichen, wenn er über landwirtschaftliche Flächen im Sinne der Definition gemäß Artikel 2 Buchstabe (a) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 verfügt, und diese nach Artikel 14 dieser Verordnung in dem Antrag angeben.“

muss es heißen:

„Ein Betriebsinhaber, der keine Beihilfe im Rahmen einer flächenbezogenen Beihilferegelung, aber eine Beihilfe im Rahmen einer anderen in Anhang I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 aufgeführten Beihilferegelung beantragt, muss einen Sammelantrag einreichen, wenn er über landwirtschaftliche Flächen im Sinne der Definition gemäß Artikel 2 Buchstabe a) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 795/2004 verfügt, und diese nach Artikel 14 dieser Verordnung in dem Antrag angeben.“

---

(1)  ABl. L 141 vom 30.4.2004, S. 1.

1

---
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 quarterly report of China Entertainment Group, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Tang Chien Chang, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, 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
      at the date and for the periods
indicated.
  Dated: May
      20, 2008
                By:
                /s/ Tang Chien
      ChangTang
      Chien Chang
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Modeling abundance effects in distance sampling      

      January 1, 2004    

Distance-sampling methods are commonly used in studies of animal populations to estimate population density. A common objective of such studies is to evaluate the relationship between abundance or density and covariates that describe animal habitat or other environmental influences. However, little attention has been focused on methods of modeling abundance covariate effects in conventional distance-sampling models. In this paper we propose a distance-sampling model that accommodates covariate effects on abundance. The model is based on specification of the distance-sampling likelihood at the level of the sample unit in terms of local abundance (for each sampling unit). This model is augmented with a Poisson regression model for local abundance that is parameterized in terms of available covariates. Maximum-likelihood estimation of detection and density parameters is based on the integrated likelihood, wherein local abundance is removed from the likelihood by integration. We provide an example using avian point-transect data of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) collected using a distance-sampling protocol and two measures of habitat structure (understory cover and basal area of overstory trees). The model yields a sensible description (positive effect of understory cover, negative effect on basal area) of the relationship between habitat and Ovenbird density that can be used to evaluate the effects of habitat management on Ovenbird populations.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Andy Royle, Ph.D.

##### Research Statistician

Eastern Ecological Science Center

aroyle@usgs.gov

301-497-5846

#### Deanna Dawson

##### Scientist Emeritus

Eastern Ecological Science Center

ddawson@usgs.gov

301-497-5642

## Related Content

#### Andy Royle, Ph.D.

##### Research Statistician

Eastern Ecological Science Center

aroyle@usgs.gov

301-497-5846

#### Deanna Dawson

##### Scientist Emeritus

Eastern Ecological Science Center

ddawson@usgs.gov

301-497-5642

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Eastern Ecological Science Center at the Leetown Research Laboratory          

11649 Leetown RoadKearneysville, WV25430United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Catoctin Mountains
                  - Maryland

View All **
EXHIBIT 99.2

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

# 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 Uranium Power Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Thornton Donaldson, acting Treasurer 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/   Thornton Donaldson
        Thornton Donaldson
        Acting Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
        December 19, 2002
EXHIBIT 31.1



     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Craig Crawford certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Project
Group, 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(s) 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; and

               c) 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(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of the 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 controls 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.

May 18, 2004

/s/ CRAIG CRAWFORD
-------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
Amendment to the PepsiCo International Retirement Plan Defined Benefit Program



 Exhibit 10.69 
 AMENDMENT ONE TO THE 
 PEPSICO INTERNATIONAL RETIREMENT PLAN

 (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2010) 

The PepsiCo International Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective January 1, 2011: 

I. 
 Section (I)(f)(l) of Table A of the Defined Benefit Program component of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 

 

	 	(1)	The Pension calculated as provided in (b) above, but based on the Pensionable Service the Member would have earned had he remained an Active Member until his
Normal Retirement Age (subject to a maximum of 35 years) and Highest Average Monthly Salary as of September 30, 2003, reduced by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Member’s actual years of Pensionable Service prior to
October 1, 2003 (subject to a maximum of 35 years) and the denominator of which is the years of Pensionable Service he would have earned had he remained an Active Member until his Normal Retirement Age. 


II. 
 The fifth paragraph of Article I—History and General Information of the Defined Contribution Program component of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 Effective January 1, 2011, the Corporation established a new defined contribution structure (the “DC
Program”) to benefit selected international employees for whom it has been determined to be appropriate (i.e., employees on assignments outside of their home countries for whom it is judged to be impractical to have them participate in
their home country retirement plans, and employees who are among a selected group of senior globalists on United States 







 
tax equalized packages). The terms of the DC Program are set forth in this document, which is the governing legal document for the DC Program. Together, the DC Program and the DB Program set
forth the terms of a single Plan. The DC Program is also sometimes referred to in employee communications as the PepsiCo International Pension Plan or “PIPP.” 

 

			
	PEPSICO, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Cynthia M. Trudell         
	Cynthia M. Trudell
	Executive Vice President, Human Resources
	Chief Personnel Officer
	Date: December 20, 2011


  

			
	 APPROVED:

		
	By:	 	/s/ Stacy L. DeWalt         
	Stacy L. DeWalt
	Employee Benefits Counsel
	Law Department


  
 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498

ME MORA NDUM SUBJECT: Ma rch 200 9 Meeting with Delphi FROM: Brian Nelson TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 200 9 - 0 472 DATE: September 11 , 200 9



### ______________________________________________________________________________ In March of 2009 , we me t with technical staff from Delphi to discuss the A/C technologies which can improve the overall efficiency of A/C sy stems, and the relative efficiency improvement that is possible with each. In particular, we discussed improved methods of controlling mot or speed

– such as pulse width modulated (PWM) control - which applied to both the blower and cooling fan motors, could result in a 15% improvement in sy stem efficiency . Attendees from Delphi were: Prasad Kadle Timothy Craig Attendees from EPA were: Ed Nam Tony Fernandez Brian Nelson OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

EMMANUEL GUSTAVE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 962

[ October 22, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara R. Duffy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 4472CF10A

.

Emmanuel Gustave, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and K LING ENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-929

____________

DENNIS SOCHOR,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[March 1, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We hereby affirm the denial of Appellant’s third successive motion for 

postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. 

Because the motion was legally insufficient on its face and refuted by the record, 

we find that the trial court’s failure to hold a case status conference was harmless 

error, and that no evidentiary hearing was required. See Marek v. State, 14 So. 3d 

985, 999 (Fla. 2009); Rutherford v. State, 926 So. 2d 1100, 1108 (Fla. 2006).

Additionally, the trial court did not err by summarily denying his claim 

based on newly discovered evidence and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

Sochor alleges that a recent declaration obtained from Marvin Droste details a 
- 2 -

confession from Gary Sochor, Appellant’s brother, that Gary was actually “more 

responsible than anyone else” for the murder of Patricia Gifford. However, the 

declaration itself is inadmissible because it does not fall within a hearsay 

exception. See Robinson v. State, 707 So. 2d 688, 691 (Fla. 1998); § 90.804(2), 

Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the declaration from Marvin Droste would not “probably 

produce an acquittal on retrial or yield a less severe sentence.” Kormondy v. State, 

154 So. 3d 341, 353 (Fla. 2015). Therefore, the newly discovered evidence claim 

was properly denied. See id. Further, the new information obtained from Droste is 

not material under the Brady standard. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-

82 (1999). Viewing the declaration by Droste in the context of the entire record, 

the content of the impeachment evidence against Gary Sochor does not undermine 

our confidence. See Mordenti v. State, 894 So. 2d 161, 172 (Fla. 2004) (explaining 

that the materiality prong of Brady is satisfied if “there is a reasonable probability 

that this evidence ‘put[s] the whole case in such a different light as to undermine 

confidence in the verdict.’ ” (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 435 (1995)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief. 

It is so ordered. 

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 

and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, 

Paul L. Backman, Judge - Case No. 061986CF015270A88810 

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Rachel Day, Assistant Capital 

Collateral Regional Counsel, Jessica Houston and Jason Kruszka, Staff Attorneys, 

Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Donna M. Perry, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,

for Appellee
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 16703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-100331]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8552]
RIN 1545-AL80


Intercompany Transfer Pricing Regulations Under Section 482

Correction

    In rule document 94-16456 beginning on page 34971 in the issue of 
Friday, July 8, 1994, make the following corrections:


Sec. 1.482-5  [Corrected]

    On page 35024, in Sec. 1.482-5(e), Example 1(iii), in the table, in 
the second, third, fourth and fifth columns, the entries for ``Sales'' 
should read ``$500,000'', ``$560,000'', ``$500,000'' and ``$520,000''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Book Chapters 

#           The integration of social-ecological resilience and law      

      January 5, 2014    

No abstract available.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269
Stacie J. HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1548

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 7, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
CAC Cost v3.0-- October 3, 200 These cost estimates represent the average costs of multiple designs at each efficiency level. They are based on reverse engineering inputs and assumptions for baseline equipment produced under each designated efficiency standard. Cost data were developed from several sources and do not represent the designs or costs of a particular

manufacturer, component supplier, or product. They may not represent equipment produced under the current efficiencystandard. Enter a new cost under "New" next to the desired cost object to see the effect on the relative cost estimate. 

# Split Air Conditioners (cased coil) - 3 Ton Efficiency Standard (SEER) 10 11 12 13 14 Original Relative Cost 1.00 1.12 1.27 1.44 1.60 New Relative Cost 1.00 1.12 1.27 1.44 1.60 Cost Component Original New Original New Original New Original New Original New Coil Materials $36.18 $39.20 $59.31 $69.63 $94.85 Coil Labor $4.15 $4.20 $4.76 $4.92 $5.40 Electrical Materials$28.44 $31.79 $31.99 $35.22 $35.17 Electrical Labor $1.05 $1.21 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 Miscellaneous Materials $4.53 $4.49 $5.66 $5.98 $6.30 Miscellaneous Labor $1.64 $1.64 $1.73 $1.76 $1.78 Fan Materials $3.26 $3.76 $4.47 $5.11 $4.86 Fan Labor $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 Cabinet Materials$13.54 $13.37 $18.83 $20.55 $21.88 Cabinet Labor $2.24 $2.23 $2.45 $2.51 $2.55 Plumbing Materials $11.30 $11.61 $11.32 $13.55 $14.46 Plumbing Labor $3.59 $3.99 $3.72 $3.99 $4.21 Compressor Materials $122.21 $151.77$152.87$167.25 $167.78 Compressor Labor$0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 Coil Materials $24.61 $30.28 $30.32 $41.25 $47.37 Coil Labor $1.98 $2.18 $2.22 $2.58 $2.79 Electrical Materials$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Electrical Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous Materials $6.43 $6.80 $8.66 $11.55 $14.13 Miscellaneous Labor $1.51 $1.52 $1.52 $1.53 $1.56 Fan Materials $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fan Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cabinet Materials$14.83 $15.45 $15.92 $17.98 $21.65 Cabinet Labor $1.35 $1.39 $1.37 $1.28 $1.36 Plumbing Materials$9.22 $7.65 $10.91 $12.03 $16.36 Plumbing Labor $6.35 $6.45 $6.62 $6.62 $6.84 Refrigerant Matl $4.18 $4.70 $5.60 $6.11 $8.08 Refrigerant Labor$0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 $0.36 Indirect Labor $10.89 $11.24 $11.38 $11.66 $12.07 Indirect Material $6.85 $6.92 $6.95 $6.95 $7.01 Equipment Depreciation $4.59 $4.78 $5.99 $6.59 $7.47 Building Depreciation $7.50 $7.58 $11.70 $13.59 $15.47 Maintenance $2.81 $2.90 $3.07 $3.20 $3.41 Utilities $2.61 $2.67 $3.82 $4.36 $4.95 Taxes $3.31 $3.71 $4.21 $4.76 $5.29 Insurance $2.94 $3.30 $3.74 $4.23 $4.70 Freight-Out $22.03 $22.26 $34.33 $39.89 $45.41 Total$367.36 $367.36 $412.29 $412.29 $467.77 $467.77 $528.96 $528.96 $587.52 $587.52 Direct Material $278.71 $278.71 $320.86 $320.86 $355.86 $355.86 $406.21 $406.21 $452.90 $452.90 Direct Labor (incl. benefits)$25.12 $25.12 $26.06 $26.06 $26.72 $26.72 $27.52 $27.52 $28.83 $28.83 Overhead (incl. benefits)$41.49 $41.49 $43.10 $43.10 $50.86 $50.86 $55.34 $55.34 $60.37 $60.37 Full Cost (no freight-out)$345.33 $345.33 $390.03 $390.03 $433.44 $433.44 $489.08 $489.08 $542.10 $542.10Outside UnitIndoor UnitOtherPrint Sheet
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Daniel A, Hamann, or Deryl F. Hamann, or either of them, attorney for me and in my
name and on my behalf to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, to be filed or as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to the registration of the cumulative trust preferred securities of GWB Capital Trust I and the cumulative trust preferred securities of GWB Capital Trust II, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the
premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31stday of August 2005,



/S/ Arthur N. BurtscherArthur N. Burtscher