alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<CASH>                                  29,943
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        64,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            357,616
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  15,626
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    15,785
<LOANS>                                829,491
<ALLOWANCE>                             (8,833)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,343,422
<DEPOSITS>                             829,029
<SHORT-TERM>                           218,532
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     77,752
<LONG-TERM>                             65,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                26,531
<OTHER-SE>                             126,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,343,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         19,497
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        5,759
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         1,350
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        26,606
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       8,110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      12,162
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   14,444
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          (9)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         11,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          6,332
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               6,332
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             4,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.62
<LOANS-NON>                              2,125
<LOANS-PAST>                             3,004
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         13,619
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,167
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              467
<RECOVERIES>                               133
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        8,833
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     8,833
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
Joseph WHITSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8708.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
Bobby Earl KEYS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petitions for rehearing denied.
Tony Lee MUTSCHLER, petitioner, v. SCI ALBION CHCA HEALTH CARE, et al.

No. 13-6273.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Modern Technology Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony Welch, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Robert Churchr, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge,respectively, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|                | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY WELCH                       |
|---------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Dated: June 1, 2004 |   | Anthony Welch   Chief Executive Officer |
|                |   |                                    |
|                |   |                                    |
|                | By:    | /s/ Robert Church                       |
| Dated: June 1, 2004 |   | Robert Church   Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to Modern Technology Corp. and will be retained by Modern Technology Corp. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

RICK FRANKLIN 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-115-RLM

O R D E R 

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on November 12, 2013. 

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 

6), ACCEPTS defendant Rick Franklin’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant 

guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321. 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: December 10, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
SCWC-14-0001356

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL JEAN PANZO,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-14-0001356; CIV. NO. 13-1-0152)

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

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL JEAN PANZO,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

(CAAP-15-0000660; CIV. NO. 13-1-0152)

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0001356

26-OCT-2017

12:34 PM
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Jean Panzo’s

application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 13, 2017,

is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 26, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Karriece Quontrel DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5898.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144364

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144364

COA: 305534

St. Clair CC: 77-122539-FC

SAMUEL LEMAR MANNINA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6585

MALIK ABDUL AL-SHABAZZ, a/k/a Willie L.

Furtick,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; RICKIE

HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correctional

Institution; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney

General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-01-3985-4-25BH)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Al-Shabazz that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Al-Shabazz failed to object

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Al-Shabazz has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27099-27100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12430]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-294-000]


Northern Border Pipeline Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1995, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of Northern Border 
Pipeline Company's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following revised tariff sheets:

First Revised Sheet Number 104
First Revised Sheet Number 124
Fourth Revised Sheet Number 156
Fifth Revised Sheet Number 157
First Revised Sheet Number 277
Second Revised Sheet Number 294
First Revised Sheet Number 436
Fourth Revised Sheet Number 500
Sixth Revised Sheet Number 501

    Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to (i) 
revise the Maximum Rate and Minimum Revenue Credit under Rate Schedule 
IT-1; (ii) allow a Rate Schedule T-1 Shipper to extend its Service 
Agreement to a term of ten or more years at anytime prior to receipt of 
termination notice; (iii) comply with the Commission's Final Rule in 
Docket No. RM95-5-000, Order No. 577 for calendar month or less 
capacity releases; and (iv) reflect housekeeping changes.
    Northern Border states that none of the herein proposed changes 
result in a change in Northern Border's total revenue requirement due 
to its cost of service form of tariff.
    Northern Border proposes to decrease the Maximum Rate from 4.174 
cents per 100 Dekatherm-Miles to 4.074 cents per 100 Dekatherm-Miles 
and to increase the Minimum Revenue Credit from 2.316 cents per 100 
Dekatherm-Miles to 2.335 cents per 100 Dekatherm-Miles. The revised 
Maximum Rate and Minimum Revenue Credit are being filed in accordance 
with Northern Border's Tariff provisions under Rate Schedule IT-1.
    Northern Border requests that the above listed tariff sheets be 
made effective July 1, 1995.
    Northern Border further states that copies of this filing have been 
sent to all of Northern Border's contracted shippers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a petition to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). All such petitions or protests 
should be filed on or before May 23, [[Page 27100]] 1995. Protests will 
be considered but not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12430 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CR-18-JTM-PRC

 )

EBONY GREEN, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT EBONY GREEN

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Ebony Green’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on March 16, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Ebony Green, counsel for Defendant

Ebony Green, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Ebony Green’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11,

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Ebony Green under

oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant Ebony Green,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Ebony Green understands the nature of the charge against her to which the

plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Ebony Green understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her pleas

of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Ebony Green understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release terms, and Defendant Ebony Green understands that the

sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Ebony Green has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Ebony Green is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Ebony Green understands that her answers may later be used against her

in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Ebony Green’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Ebony Green’s plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count Three of the Indictment and that Defendant Ebony Green be adjudged guilty of the offense

charged in Count Three of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Ebony Green be adjudged guilty,

a sentencing date before Judge James T. Moody will be set by separate order. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

SO ORDERED this16th day of March, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody

2
Exhibit 10.4  AMENDMENT TO DANVERSBANK DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN  WHEREAS, Danversbank (the Bank), a Massachusetts community bank, has adopted the Danversbank Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1 , 2005 (the Plan); and  WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Bank desires to amend the Plan to prohibit deferrals of compensation under the Plan after December 31, 2008 and to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code); and  WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.  NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank, intending to be legally bound, hereby makes the following amendments to the Plan:  1.Section 1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following immediately prior to the period at the end thereof:  , provided that participation in the Plan shall be frozen to new Participants as of December 31, 2008  2.Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following sentence to the end thereof:  Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Participant shall be permitted to defer the receipt of his vested shares from the Phantom Stock Plan or the receipt of any performance-based cash bonus hereunder after December 31, 2008 and no deferral election hereunder may be made by any Participant (x) after December 31, 2008 or (y) with respect to any compensation earned following December 31, 2008.  3.Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following to the end thereof:  Distributions payable hereunder upon a Participants termination of employment, shall only be payable upon the Participants separation from service.  The term separation from service shall mean the Participants separation from service from the Bank, an affiliate of the Bank or a successor entity within the meaning set forth in Section 409A of the Code, determined in accordance with


the presumptions set forth in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-1(h).  4.Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following to the end thereof:  The Bank makes no representation or warranty and shall have no liability to any Participant or any other person if any provisions of this Plan or any deferral election made hereunder are determined to constitute deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code but do not satisfy an exemption from, or the conditions of, such Section.  5.All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms, and nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing under the Plan except to the extent specifically provided for herein.  6.The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by its officers thereunto authorized on the day and year first above written.   DANVERSBANKBy:Name:Title:  2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6664

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., a/k/a Randy Hughes,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., a/k/a Randy Hughes,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00155-MR-1; 1:16-cv00219-MR)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020
2

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. These

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 

392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 

140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
In re Gary HUNT, petitioner.

No. 13-5008.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 10.14B



  
 Exhibit 10.14b

  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO BOARD CHAIRMAN’S SERVICES
AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT, effective January 26,
2004, between COLUMBIA BANCORP, a Maryland corporation (“Columbia Bancorp”), THE COLUMBIA BANK, a Maryland trust company and the principal subsidiary of Columbia Bancorp (“Columbia Bank”), and WINFIELD M. KELLY, JR.
(“Kelly”), amends the BOARD CHAIRMAN’S SERVICES AGREEMENT between Columbia Bancorp, Columbia Bank, and Kelly, dated February 9, 2000, as amended by FIRST AMENDMENT TO BOARD CHAIRMAN’S SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated April 1, 2002
(collectively, the “Agreement”). 
  
 W I
T N E S S E T H: 
  
 Columbia Bancorp, Columbia Bank, and Kelly desire to effect an early termination of a majority of the Agreement. 
  
 Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual covenants and representations contained herein and the mutual benefits derived herefrom, Columbia Bancorp,
Columbia Bank, and Kelly agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Columbia Bancorp and/or Columbia Bank shall pay to Kelly the sum of $200,000 cash in the aggregate as provided under Section 4(e) of the Agreement or earlier as requested by Kelly. 
  
 2. In all other respects the Agreement is terminated as of the effective date
hereof. Neither Columbia Bancorp, Columbia Bank, nor Kelly shall have any further obligations or responsibilities thereunder or hereunder. 
  
 3. Nothing in this Second Amendment shall serve to terminate Kelly’s role as Chairman of the Board and lead independent director of Columbia Bancorp
and Columbia Bank, who shall continue to serve in that capacity until the adjournment of the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (or such shorter period at the pleasure of the Board of Directors) at such compensation as the Board of Directors shall
determine. Subsequent to such Annual Meeting Kelly shall serve as Vice Chairman of the Board and lead independent director of Columbia Bancorp and Columbia Bank at the pleasure of the Board of Directors and at such compensation as the Board shall
determine. 
  










 Exhibit 10.14b 
  

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Second Amendment to the Agreement on
January 26, 2004, effective January 26, 2004. 
  

					
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 COLUMBIA BANCORP

			
	  	 	 	 	 /s/    John A. Scaldara, Jr.

	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 Name:  John A. Scaldara, Jr.

	 	 	 	 	 Title:    President/Chief Operating Officer


  

					
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE COLUMBIA BANK

			
	  	 	 	 	 /s/    John A. Scaldara, Jr.

	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 Name:  John A. Scaldara, Jr.

	 	 	 	 	 Title:    President/Chief Operating Officer


  

					
	 WITNESS:
	 	 	 	 
			
	  	 	 	 	 /s/    Winfield M. Kelly, Jr.

	
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 Winfield M. Kelly, Jr.


  

 - 2 -