alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10464 Summary Calendar

GERALD N. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; S. DAYLASATOS, Assistant Warden; SERGEANT SHAGEL, Unit Grievance Coordinator; DR. VAHORA, Medical Doctor; CAPTAIN FRYE, Temporary Unit Grievance Coordinator; OFFICER LOPEZ, Corrections Officer; LIEUTENANT ORTEZ; CAPTAIN HARLIN; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CV-68-BG

- - - - - - - - - - Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gerald N. Lee, Texas prisoner no. 784007, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for failure to protect. The district court held that Lee had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Lee concedes that he did not file a step two grievance but argues that he should beNo. 02-10464 -2- excused from this requirement because the denial of his step one grievance indicated that the grievance procedure should not be used to address his safety concerns. Lee also asserts that he should not be bound by case law regarding exhaustion that was issued after he filed his step one grievance. At the time that Lee filed his step one grievance, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provided that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." Thus, exhaustion was mandatory, “irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative
avenues.” Booth v. Churner , 532 U.S. 731, 739, 741 n.6 (2001). Lee raised two issues in his step one grievance. The response to this grievance did not address his safety concerns. Therefore, Lee should have filed a step two grievance to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Wright v. Hollingsworth , 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1

Order entered April 23 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01284 - CV IN RE VENATOR MATERI ALS, PLC, Relators O riginal Proceeding from the 134th Judicial Distri c t Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 19 - 02030

ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle At relators’ request, we abated this original proceeding pending the issuance of the mandate in a related appeal. Because the mandate in t hat appeal has issued,
we REINSTATE this original proceeding. Before the Court is the unopposed motion to dismiss filed by relators Venator Materials PLC, Simon Turner, Kurt D. Ogden, Stephen Ibbotson, and Russ R. Stolle’s (collectively, Venator relators) and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ( t he Underwriter r elators ). We GRANT the motion and2

dismiss this original proceeding with respect to the Venator relato r s and the Underwriter relators. The opposed motion to transfer venue of this proceeding with respect to the remaining parties, Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman International LLC, and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V.’s (collectively, Huntsman relators), is also before the Court . Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Co ., 914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), the Court refer s the Huntsman relators ’ motion to the Texas Supreme Court. In light of this Court’s opinion in a
r elated appeal, Venator Materials PLC v. Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System , 05

- 19

- 01177

- CV, 2020 WL 289296 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Jan. 21, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.), the Court does not object to the transfer. We ABATE th is original proceeding pending disposition of the motion to transfer.
/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
Weight Calibration across Packages

Stas Kolenikov

9/23/2019
Weight calibration

Deville & Sarndal (1992)

Last step in creating analysis weights in survey data files

Adjusting the weights so that they sum to known population

totals in different subgroups (age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography,

etc.)

Desirable to minimize changes from the input weights

(probability of selection, nonresponse adjustments, frame

integration, etc.)

·

·

·

2/18
Contenders

Stata

R

SAS

ipfraking (Kolenikov 2014, 2019)

svycal (official Stata)

survwgt (Winter 2002)

sreweight (Pacifico 2014)

·

·

·

·

· survey::calibrateルレ (Lumley 2010)

· rake_and_trimルレ (Izrael, Battaglia, Hoaglin, Frankel, Ball, 2017)

3/18
Out of scope

SUDAAN PROC WGTADJ, PROC WGTADJX

Stata ipfweight (Bergmann 2011)

R libraryルReGeneseesレ (Zardetto 2015)

R libraryルipfrレ (Ward, Macfarlane 2019)

·

·

·

·

4/18
Expectations

Produce usable results

Provide weight diagnostics

Speed

Fool proof

·

·

·

·

5/18
Running example

6/18
Running example

CPS 2018 March ASEC data

estimate control totals based on 13353 adults in CA

calibrate 8403 adults in TX on

·

·

sex

age (14 categories)

race/ethnicity (6 categories)

education (5 categories)

HH income (9 categories)

nativity (3 categories)

marital status (6 categories)

own vs. rent

metro area of TX (23 categories)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7/18
Tasks and tests

1. Straight raking

2. Raking with divergent population control totals

3. Raking with bounded weight adjustment ratios [0.3,3]

4. Raking with bounded weight values (2nd and 98th percentile of

unrestricted distribution)

5. Linear calibration

6. Linear calibration with trimming

7. (Informative error expected) incorrect specification of control

totals

8/18
Performance summary

N: no documented functionality exists

W: issued reasonable warnings

F: failed with cryptic error message / no message

package TOT DIV REL ABS LIN LIN+TR time

ipfraking name +W + + + N 7.14 sec

svycal name/= F F N + + 0.18 sec

survwgt order NW N N N N 0.80 sec

sreweight order F F N + N 0.19 sec

calibrate name -W .. + + + 0.35 sec

rake_and_trim name+magic F -W + N N 61 sec

9/18
Stata ipfraking

10/18
Stata svycal

11/18
Stata survwgt

12/18
R survey::calibrateルレ

13/18
SAS rake_and_trimルレ

14/18
SAS rake_and_trimルレ

15/18
Weight trimming methodology ≠

16/18
Misspecified control totals

E: issued an error and stopped

!!!: did not issue an error – results highly suspect!

package Extra in pop Extra in data Wrong order

ipfraking E E

svycal E !!!

survwgt N/A N/A !!!

sreweight E E !!!

calibrate E E

rake_and_trim !?!? !!!

17/18
Thanks and out

Questions?

stas_kolenikov@abtassoc.com

@StatStas on Twitter

·

·

18/18
EX PARTE Christopher Lee PRICE

1161153 (CR-16-0785)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
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 Housing and Land Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

Dated:  May 15, 2006                        By:      /s/ Lu Pingji
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Lu Pingji
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                       12
Victor BREWER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1972

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
# C_2016200EN.01003001.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/30

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)

(Case T-163/16)

(2016/C 200/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘secret. service.’ — Application No 14 108 757

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 1820/2015-4

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;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

SEP 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

corporation and MABEL MAK, an 

individual,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

INDYZEN, INC., a California 

corporation and PRAVEEN NARRA 

KUMAR, an individual,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-15534

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

U.S. District Court for Northern 

California, Oakland

ORDER

A review of the docket demonstrates that counsel has failed to file the 

opening brief in this case.

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Counsel for appellants is directed to notify his/her client immediately in 

writing regarding this dismissal. 

This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the 

order, act as the mandate of this court.

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 162 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2 Case: 20-15534, 09/22/2020, ID: 11832695, DktEntry: 28, Page 1 of 2
FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Estela Urrutia

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 162 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2 Case: 20-15534, 09/22/2020, ID: 11832695, DktEntry: 28, Page 2 of 2
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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Pytak Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal 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, to my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 13, 2011




/s/ Richard A. Pytak Jr.Name:
Richard A. Pytak Jr.Title:
Chief Financial Officer
Y.P. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170040

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2018

Affirmed.
Ronald MCFADDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the annual report of Endovasc, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. Dwight Cantrell,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.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: October 13, 2004                       /s/ M. Dwight Cantrell
                                             ------------------------
                                             M. Dwight Cantrell
                                             Chief Financial Officer


A  SIGNED  ORIGINAL  OF  THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED  TO ENDOVASC, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ENDOVASC, INC. AND FURNISHED
TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Encompass Services Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-41749, No. 333-41751, No. 333-58651, No. 333-60537, No. 333-69421, No.
333-78311, No. 333-93649, No. 333-35330, No. 333-35334, No. 333-35418 and No.
333-85920) on Form S-8, the registration statements (No. 333-81201 and No.
333-93649) on Form S-4, and the registration statement (No. 333-93665) on Form
S-3 of Encompass Services Corporation of our report dated February 19, 2002,
except as to Note 17, which is as of June 28, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of Encompass Services Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December
31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and other comprehensive income and cash flows for the years
then ended, which report appears in this Form 10-K/A of Encompass Services
Corporation. Our report refers to a change in accounting for derivative
instruments and hedging activities.


KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
June 28, 2002
**Exhibit 21.1**   **P.F. Chang’s Entities****:** **Pei Wei Asian Diner Entities****:**P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner, Inc.PFCCB Shared Corporate Services, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner One LLCPFCCB Gift Card, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Two (Dallas) LLPPFCCB Retail, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Three (SO CAL) LLCPFCCB Pinnacle Peak LLC Pei Wei Asian Diner Four (Houston) LLPPFCCB 2005 Partnership LLP Pei Wei Asian Diner Five (Denver) LLCPFCCB 2006 Partnership LLP Pei Wei Asian Diner Six (Nevada) LLCTaneko Japanese Tavern, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Seven (Central Texas) LLPLucky Cat Assistance Fund, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Nine (DC) LLCPFCCB Equipment LLC Pei Wei Asian Diner Ten (Florida) LLCPFCCB Licensing, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Eleven (Minnesota) LLCPFCCB Administration, Inc. Pei Wei Asian Diner Fourteen (North Carolina) LLCPFC Building III Limited Partnership Pei Wei Asian Diner Fifteen (Michigan) LLCPFCCB NUCA LLC Pei-the-Wei, Inc.PFCCB NUCA (2003) LLC PWAD Texas, Inc.PFCCB Mid-Atlantic LLC The Arbors Club, Inc.PFCCB Southeastern LLC PWAD-Preston Center Club, Inc.PFCCB Southeastern (2003) LLC PWAD Forest Lane Club, Inc.PFCCB SO CAL LLC Pei Wei Houston, Inc.PFCCB SO CAL II LLC PWAD Olathe LLCPFCCB SO CAL (2003) LLC PWAD Overland Park LLCPFCCB LouTex Joint Venture LLP PWAD Southwest, Inc.PFCCB Florida Joint Venture LLP  PFCCB NewTex Joint Venture LLP  PFCCB Midwest LLC  PFCCB Midwest (2003) LLC  PFCCB Northwest LLC  PFCCB Northwest (2004) LLC  PFCCB Halpern LLC  PFCCB Marlton LLC  PFCCB Edgewater LLC  PFCCB Wichita LLC  P.F.C.C.B. Club-Frankford, Inc.  P.F.C.C.B. Texas, Inc.  PFCCB Arkansas, Inc.  PFCCB Rogers, Inc.  PFC Hawaii LLC  P.F. Chang’s III, L.L.C.  P.F. Chang’s VI, Inc.  PFCCB Maryland, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6812

FRANKLIN J. LOFTIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusMICHAEL MOORE, Director; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-2185-3-6BC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin J. Loftis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Loftis v. Moore , Nos. CA-97-2185-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr . 2 & May21, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD TUSCANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELENA VILLALOBOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07373-JD 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, REMANDING 

CASE AND IMPOSING PRE-FILING 

REVIEW

Re: Dkt. No. 8

The Court has reviewed Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero’s report and 

recommendations. Dkt. No. 8. No objections have been filed in response to the report, and by the 

Court’s calculation, the time to file objections expired on January 20, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b).

This is defendants’ second attempt to remove the very same case the Court previously 

ordered remanded. See Case No. 16-cv-6252-JD, Dkt. No. 10 (order remanding case, dated 

December 12, 2016). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Spero’s recommendation that the 

case should be remanded again because the removal is jurisdictionally improper and untimely. 

Dkt. No. 8.

The Court further agrees with Magistrate Judge Spero’s finding that defendants’ removals 

are frivolous and his recommendation that a pre-filing review order should be imposed. The Court 

consequently orders that before filing any further notices of removal of Monterey County Superior 

Court case number 16CV001985, Elena Villalobos, Jonathan Villalobos, Raul Villalobos and/or

Ashley Villalobos must first file a motion with the Court seeking leave to file a notice of removal. 

Any such motion must include: (1) a copy of Magistrate Judge Spero’s Report and 

Recommendation issued in this case; (2) a copy of this Order; and (3) a copy of the proposed 

Case 3:16-cv-07373-JD Document 12 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

filing. The Clerk of the Court shall not accept for filing any further notices of removal of 

Monterey County Superior Court case number 16CV001985 unless accompanied by an order from 

a judge of this district granting leave to file the removal papers. 

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Spero’s finding that “[t]he record as a whole 

indicates an intent to delay” on the part of defendants, “rather than a bona fide desire to litigate in 

a federal forum.” Dkt. No. 8 at 4. Unfortunately, it does not appear to the Court that fees and 

sanctions can properly be awarded at this time under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Any further attempts to remove this case that are not in 

compliance with this order, however, will result in monetary sanctions on defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2017

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07373-JD Document 12 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2
Melvin GUIDRY and Triege Guidry v. ABC TRUCKING COMPANY, et al.

Louisiana Scrap Metal Recycling, et al. v. Larsen Intermodal Services, Inc.

NO. 2019-C-0554

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

*544Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas R. Staab, II, 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: March 11, 2005 |  | /s/    THOMAS R. STAAB,
II                                               
|                     |  | Thomas R. Staab, II Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)