alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN HARRIS, also known as Melvin

Robinson; LARRY WASHINGTON, also

known as “Pretty Larry,”

Defendants-Appellants.

(consolidated with)

No. 96-60734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

(consolidated with)

No. 96-60736
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN HARRIS, also known as 

Melvin Robinson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:95-CR-133)

September 8, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated casesMelvin Harris and LarryWashington appeal their

convictions after jury trial of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and of the

substantive offense. They urge several bases for their appeals, including a claim

of insufficient evidence. Our review of the pertinent parts of the record in light of

the briefs and oral arguments of counsel reflects neither reversible error nor other

basisfor reversal of the convictions of either defendant-appellant. Accordingly the
3

convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.15

               SCHEDULE OF OMITTED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS


     The following documents have been omitted as Exhibits to the
Registration Statement because they are on substantially identical terms as
Exhibit 10.22 in all material respects other than with respect to the amounts
payable to the executives under the agreements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Annual
                       Agreement                            Compensation
     ------------------------------------------           ----------------
<S>                                                      <C>
     1. Executive Employment Agreement, dated
          as of January 1, 1997, by and between
          TA and Edwin P. Kuhn                              $  325,000

     2.  Executive Employment Agreement, dated
          as of January 1, 1997, by and between
          TA and James W. George                            $  210,000

     3.  Executive Employment Agreement, dated
          as of January 1, 1997, by and between
          TA and Michael H. Hinderliter                     $  210,000

     4.  Executive Employment Agreement, dated
          as of January 1, 1997, by and between
          TA and Timothy L. Doane                           $  210,000
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1291

MOHAMMED MOOSAVI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RALPH B. EVANS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-98-1779-A)

Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammed Moosavi, Appellant Pro Se. Alan David Eisler, PALEY,

ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN, ROSENBERG & COOPER, Bethesda, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as

“filed” on February 9, 1999, the district court’s records show that

it was entered on the docket sheet on February 10, 1999. Pursuant

to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it

is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket

sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Moosavi appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal on the reasoning of the

district court. See Moosavi v. Evans, No. 98-1779-A (E.D. Va. Feb.

10, 1999).* However, because the court lacked jurisdiction over

the subject matter of the action, the dismissal should have been

without prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and we modify the

judgment insofar as it purports to dismiss the action with prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Scott JOHNSON, Husband, Appellant, v. Peggy JOHNSON, Wife, and Dicey V. Absher, Appellees.

No. 1D18-2539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021310EN.01000902.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/9

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-550/20, Sharpston v Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case C-685/20 P)

(2021/C 310/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eleanor Sharpston (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, J. Robb, Barrister, J. Flynn QC and H. Mercer QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

By order of 16 June 2021, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.

---
Donald Adam DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4514

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 25, 2019

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MITCHELL GREGORY PECK, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 215 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24 th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Where the drug delivery resulting in death (“DDRD”) statute explicitly applies only to deliveries occurring “in violation of section 13(a)(14) or (30) of” the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (“The Act”), is violation of the Act an essential element of DDRD?

(2) Where a drug delivery occurs wholly in another state, can that delivery violate the Act, which explicitly applies only to deliveries occurring “within th e Commonwealth?”

(3) If a violation of the Act is an element of DDRD and an out

- of

- state delivery does not violate the Act, did the Superior Court err in affirming [Petitioner’s] DDRD conviction based on a delivery occurring wholly in Maryland?
# Contact Us

Please contact your local FBI office to submit a tip or report a crime. Use our online form to file electronically or call the appropriate toll-free number.

- Overseas Offices
- How can screenwriters, authors, and producers seeking authenticity work with the FBI? If you are a writer, author, or producer who wants to feature the FBI, we may be able to work with you to create an accurate portrayal of the Bureau. Project assistance is considered on a case-by-case basis.
- International Offices The FBI has offices around the globe. These offices—called legal attachés or legats—are located in U.S. embassies.
- FBI Headquarters Our Headquarters is located between 9th and 10th Streets in northwest Washington, D.C. The closest Metro subway stops are Federal Triangle on the Orange/Blue lines, Gallery Place/Chinatown and Metro Center on the Red line, and Archives/Navy Memorial on the Yellow and Green lines.
- Field Offices The FBI has 56 field offices (also called divisions) centrally located in major metropolitan areas across the U.S. and Puerto Rico. They are the places where we carry out investigations, assess local and regional crime threats, and work closely with partners on cases and operations.
# C_2017006EN.01005101.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/51

---

Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)

(Case T-780/16)

(2017/C 006/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, (lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colour black, yellow and white, containing the word element ‘mediaexpert’ — EU trade mark No 11 674 132

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2583/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of Cancellation Division dated 29/10/2015 in application for a declaration of invalidity proceedings N 000009371 C; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of Cancellation Division dated 29/10/2015 in application for a declaration of invalidity proceedings N 000009371 C;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and invalidate European Union Trade Mark No 011674132 in respect of all the services covered; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and invalidate European Union Trade Mark No 011674132 in respect of all the services covered;

| — | charge the EUIPO with the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, Board of Appeal and General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

charge the EUIPO with the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 53(1) (a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) (a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 53(1) (a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) (a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ronald L.
OKelley, President and Chief Executive Officer of US Shipping General Partner
LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

| |                                       
| | --------------------------------------
| | /s/ Ronald
 L. OKelley               
| |                                       
| | Ronald L. OKelley                    
| | President and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | August 12, 2009                       

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping
Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00069-CV

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE JOINT SELF-INSURANCE FUND, and The Texas 

Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool,

Appellants

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALICE,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-10-53721-CV

Honorable David A. Sanchez, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order Selecting Umpire 

is VACATED and this case is DISMISSED. 

We ORDER all costs of this appeal are assessed against appellee, the Housing Authority 

of the City of Alice.

SIGNED October 14, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

 1 The Honorable David A. Sanchez is the elected judge of the 444th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas. 

He presided over this matter as a visiting judge.
[J-64-2013][M.O. – Stevens, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

Appellee 

v. 

HAROLD WINSTON NOEL, JR., 

Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 23 EAP 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior 

Court entered on 9/11/12 at No. 1336 

EDA 2010, affirming the judgment of 

sentence entered on 4/16/10 in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP51-CR-0011510-2008; CP-51-CR0011511-2008 and MC-51-CR0033142-2008 

ARGUED: September 11, 2013 

DISSENTING OPINION 

MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: November 21, 2014 

I agree with Mr. Justice Baer’s conclusion that the trial court violated Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 631. See Concurring Opinion, slip op. at 6. That being the case, 

and as Appellant preserved this meritorious claim of trial court error, the appropriate 

inquiry implicates a harmless error analysis, for which the Commonwealth is obligated 

to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the verdict. 

See Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 100, 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994); see also 

Commonwealth v. Strong, 575 Pa. 433, 437, 836 A.2d 884, 887 (2003) (applying a 

harmless error analysis to a violation of a rule of criminal procedure and collecting 
[J-64-2013][M.O. – Stevens, J.] - 2 

cases); Commonwealth v. Morris, 522 Pa. 533, 541, 564 A.2d 1226, 1230 (1989) 

(holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless).1 

Accordingly, I do not agree with the proposition of the majority and responsive 

opinions that Appellant is not entitled to relief because he has failed to establish 

prejudice. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 24 (“Because Appellant has not 

demonstrated that the process deprived him of a fair and impartial jury, neither do we 

conclude that Appellant suffered actual prejudice.”); Concurring Opinion, slip op. at 7 (“I 

ultimately find myself in a concurring posture in this appeal because Appellant has failed 

to preserve for appellate review the discrete issue of whether he suffered any actual 

prejudice . . ..”). Consequently, and as the Commonwealth has not attempted to satisfy 

its harmless error burden or offer grounds for shifting the evidentiary burden to 

Appellant, I respectfully dissent. 

 

1

 The Court has not consistently applied harmless error constructs when faced with a 

violation of a criminal rule. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 556 Pa. 131, 136, 727 

A.2d 541, 544 (1999) (upon finding a violation of the criminal rule governing the 

amendment of a criminal information, proceeding to examine whether the defendant 

was prejudiced by that violation). Absent persuasive policy justifications for undertaking 

an ad hoc approach based upon the character of the rule violated, which the 

Commonwealth has not advanced in this case, I see no grounds for deviating from the 

general rule imposing the burden upon the Commonwealth to prove that preserved 

meritorious trial court errors are harmless.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter
ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, J. Patrick O'Shaughnessy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                       |  | /s/ J. PATRICK O'SHAUGHNESSYJ. Patrick O'Shaughnessy Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  |                                                                                                          

---



QuickLinks
# C_2018408EN.01003501.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/35

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission

(Case C-539/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Grant agreement - Non-eligible costs - European Commission decision on recovery - Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU - Appeal manifestly unfounded))

(2018/C 408/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Kyratsou and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, P.A., real )

party in interest acting on behalf of C. Itoh )

Middle East E.C. (Bahrain), )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2440-O

) (Including, by consolidation:

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CONGO, ) Former No. 3:04-CV-2441 and 

et al. ) Former No. 3:05-CV-0093)

Defendants, )

)

CMS OIL AND GAS COMPANY, CMS )

NOMECO CONGO, INC., THE NUEVO )

CONGO COMPANY, AND NUEVO )

CONGO, LTD., )

Garnishees. )

ORDER

The Court has been notified that Plaintiff and Defendants have settled, but there remains

an outstanding issue regarding attorney’s fees and expenses for the garnishees, which the parties

are attempting to resolve without court intervention. The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties

shall file a Joint Status Report regarding the progress made towards settlement of the outstanding

issues no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2008. 

SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2008.

_________________________________

Reed O’Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02440-O Document 42 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID 622
Donna M. SMITH v. Monique E. BARIAL, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0202

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.
Eric Karl MCCOY, DOC #051791, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:04-cr-00135-M Document 76 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 195
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 284 

To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio (for himself, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mrs. DINGELL, Ms. KAPTUR, 

Mr. STAUBER, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Ms. TENNEY, Ms. 

STEVENS, Mr. FOSTER, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. MORELLE, 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. CASTEN, Mr. BERGMAN, Ms. SCHOLTEN, 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. THANEDAR, Mr. MRVAN, Mr. KELLY of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. JAMES, Mr. STEIL, Ms. MCDONALD RIVET, Mrs. 

SYKES, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. BARRETT, and Ms. BROWN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 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 ‘‘Great Lakes Restora5 tion Initiative Act of 2025’’ or the ‘‘GLRI Act of 2025’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 284 IH

1 SEC. 2. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE REAU2 THORIZATION. 

3 Section 118(c)(7)(J)(i) of the Federal Water Pollu4 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)(J)(i)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in subclause (V), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in subclause (VI), by striking the period at 

9 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(VII) $500,000,000 for each of 

12 fiscal years 2027 through 2031.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.  350), the undersigned, Joseph Skeehan, Chief Financial Officer of JMG Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the  filing  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  of the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report").  The undersigned certifies that:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 6th day of August 2008.   JMG EXPLORATION, INC.  /s/Joseph Skeehan Name: Joseph Skeehan Title: Chief Financial Officer