alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CLARK, ATCHESON & REISERT 

Richard J. Reisert (RR-7118) 

Attorneys for Garnishee 

Societe Generale New York Branch 

7800 River Road 

North Bergen, NJ 07047 

Tel: (201) 537-1200 

Fax: (201) 537-1201 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------------------------------------x 

NORTH OFFSHORE AS, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 07-CV-3095 

 : 

 v. : NOTICE OF 

 : APPEARANCE

ROLV BERG DRIVE AS, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

---------------------------------------------------------------x 

TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: 

 Please enter my appearance as counsel for Garnishee, Société Générale New York 

Branch. I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Honorable Court. 

Dated: North Bergen, New Jersey 

 May 8, 2007 

 CLARK, ATCHESON & REISERT 

 Attorneys for Garnishee 

 Société Générale New York Branch 

 

 By: 

 Richard J. Reisert (RR-7118) 

 7800 River Road 

 North Bergen, NJ 07047 

 Tel: (201) 537-1200 

 Fax: (201) 537-1201 

 Email: reisert@navlaw.com

Case 1:07-cv-03353-JSR Document 10 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

No. 274 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 316.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980. Motion of plaintiffs to dismiss.
Exhibit 15.3





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR





To the Supervisory Board and Shareholders of ASM International N.V.





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 033-07111, 033-07109, 333-87262, 033-06184, 033-06185, 033-06186, 033-78628 and 033-93026) of our report dated April 9, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of ASM Pacific Technology Limited (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the differences between Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America), appearing in Amendment No. 1  to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of ASM International N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2014.








/s/  Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Certified Public Accountants





Deloitte Touche TohmatsuCertified Public AccountantsHong KongAugust 31, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADELBERTO OMAR SILVA-ANGON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-73123 

Agency No. A075-121-249 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 9, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Adelberto Omar Silva-Angon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of his motion to 

suppress. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

The BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence of Silva-Angon’s alienage 

that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) obtained during the raid of Sun 

Valley Floral Farms was not obtained in violation of Silva-Angon’s constitutional 

rights or any laws or regulations. Silva-Angon was not entitled to advisement of his 

rights under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) because the raid, and the subsequent questioning at 

McKinleyville Coast Guard Station (“McKinleyville Station”), took place well 

before formal removal proceedings were commenced against him. See SamayoaMartinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901–02 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor does Silva-Angon 

present evidence compelling the conclusion that the administrative search warrant 

pursuant to which ICE conducted the raid egregiously violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights by improperly authorizing his arrest. See Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 

38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994); Int’l Molders and Allied Workers’ Local Union 

No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 552–53 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, Silva-Angon 

presents no evidence compelling the conclusion that conditions during the raid or at 

McKinleyville Station were so coercive that Silva-Angon’s “will was overborne,”

thus admitting the Form I-213 would not violate his Fifth Amendment rights. See 

Ortiz v. Uribe, 671 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Jose Francisco Rodriguez ROCHA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72504.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Jose Francisco Rodriguez Rocha, Riverside, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Francisco Rodriguez Rocha and his wife and minor son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their motion to reconsider the BIA’s denial of them motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely filed.

Petitioners contend that the BIA should have *sua sponte*reopened removal proceedings so that they could introduce new evidence of hardship to their United States citizen daughter to support their claim for cancellation of removal relief. Petitioners’ motion to reconsider was due within 30 days of the BIA’s decision, but was instead filled more than eight months after the BIA’s decision. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioners’ motion to reconsider was untimely filed, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(B), 8 . C.F.R. § 1003.2(b), and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to *sua sponte*reconsider its prior decision, *see Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir .2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 pjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *894courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60306 Summary Calendar

Dana Martin Plaintiff-Appellant v. Griffin Industries, Inc. Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:06-CV-113)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * On March 6, 2008, Judge Henry T. Wingate, Chief District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, Griffin Industries, and dismissed all of the claims of plaintiff-appellant, Dana Martin. Martin timely appealed, raising three issues, all based on claims brought under TitleVII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964: Whether the district court erred in granting summary United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60306

1 Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-2(a)(1), 2000(e)-3.

2 Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 2008).

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

4 See Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[Plaintiff] has produced no substantial evidence to support her contention that the City’s legitimate nondiscriminatory justification for her demotion was, in fact, a pretext . . . .”). 2 judgment as toher discriminatory discharge claim, as to her disparate treatment claim, and as to her retaliation claim. 1 We review grants ofsummary judgment de novo. 2 Summary judgment is only appropriate “ifthe pleadings, the discovery and the disclosure materials on file, and any affi davits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 3 In the instant case, as the district court noted, Martin has offered no evidence aside from her conclusory allegations that any aspect of Griffin’s actions derived from discriminatory animus. 4 Griffin has adduced evidence establishing that it fired Martin not due to discrimination but rather due to her defi cient performance, and that the lack of a severance package (although the
record suggests Martin in fact refused a package that Griffin offered) was not due to sex discrimination. Martin fails to point to any facts that cast doubt on Griffin’s proffered reasons. Finally, Martin has failed to demonstrate that there
was any protected activity in which she engaged, suitable to trigger the protections against retaliation that are included in Title VII. Martin’s appeal is without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 1:06-cv-15099-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB Program for Louisiana.

## Summary

The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
    - October 30, 2005. Louisiana triggered “on” EB. Louisiana's 13-week insured unemployment rate for the week ending October 15, 2005, rose       ( print page 69785)                          above the 5.0 percent threshold necessary to be triggered “on” to EB effective for the week beginning October 30, 2005.                

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the States by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a State beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).

Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact the nearest State Workforce Agency in their locality.

Signed at Washington, DC, on November 7, 2005.

Emily Stover DeRocco,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.

[FR Doc. 05-22797  Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the
40-F) of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2015 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion
and Analysis(MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which
are incorporated by reference therein.

The undersigned hereby consents to all references to him as a
non-independent qualified person in or incorporated by reference in the 40-F,
the AIF and the MD&A.

|/s/ R. Michael
      Jones | 
|-------------------------- | 
|R. Michael Jones           | 
|Date: November 24, 2015    | 

---
Exhibit 10.13


 


Option Grant Notice


 


January 3, 2022


Mr. Jeffrey Bradley


1120 Legacy Drive


Birmingham, Alabama 35242


 


Dear Jeff,


This letter is to confirm the previous agreement of Sports Ventures
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), to grant you an option to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s Class A Ordinary
Shares in consideration of your service as a director. This option is intended to be awarded to you as Ordinary Shares of the Company
under its Employee Stock Plan promptly following the completion of the Company’s combination with Prime Focus World, N.V.





	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	Sports Ventures Acquisition Corp.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Alan Kestenbaum
	 	 	Alan Kestenbaum,
	 	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors
Case 1:06-cv-15048-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### HOWELL v. NICHOLS

No. 70 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 741.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15093-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
#### STATE v. JAMES MACK WILLIAMS. and STATE v. GEORGE KELLY BOULWARE.

(Filed 19 October, 1966.)

Appeal by defendants from *McLean, J.,*April 4, 1966 Regular Schedule Criminal Session, MecKLENbuRG Superior Court.

The indictment charged that the defendants, on the 5th day of March, 1966, with force and arms unlawfully, wilfully, and fe-loniously made an assault upon Sherman Hickman, putting him in bodily fear and danger of his life; did unlawfully, wilfully, and fe-loniously take and steal from him one gold watch of the value of $15.60 in money.

Upon arraignment each defendant, through counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecuting witness immediately notified Mr. Henderson of the Charlotte Police Department of the assault and robbery and pointed out the two defendants as the perpetrators. *366As Officer Henderson approached the defendants they started to separate. Williams threw away the gold watch which the officer recovered and which the owner identified as the one taken from him. Each defendant testified in his own defense, denying any participation in the assault. Each defendant called other witnesses tending in minor detail to corroborate parts of his story.

The jury returned verdicts of guilty as to each defendant. Judge McLean imposed prison sentences of not less than nine nor more than 10 years. From the judgments and sentences, the defendants appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General for the State.*

*William G. Robinson for defendant Williams.*

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.*

*Stagg & Reynolds by William L. Stagg for defendant Boulware.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence of the robbery was positive. The identity of the defendants as the perpetrators was equally positive. The victim notified the officers immediately after the assault. They arrested the defendants near the scene. Williams threw away the gold watch which was taken from the prosecuting witness. The officer recovered it. Both defendants had served prison sentences for crimes of violence. The sentences approached but did not exceed the maximum permitted by law. In the trial, we find

No error.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 25 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 25 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT GF NEW YORK I' 

--------------------.-------------- -X 

SEAT SACK, INC . , 

Plaintiff, 

- aqai:lst - 

CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP., and 

SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC . , 

Defendants. I II/~ 

n February 13, 2008, I held a ~f~Mr. Carroll 

and Mr. Eaish participating by telephone and M Fine 

participating in Courtroom 18A. I 1 :\I 

11 : 

I denied plalntlff's motion for a prellrnl y injunction 

[Document 22). As to defendantsr motion to dl ss some G£ the 

coilnts, Mr. Carroll of fei-ed to prepare an amen1 i complaint that 

would provlde more partlzulars about the fraud aims. Instead, 

I ruled that it wlll be more efficient to proc as follows. 

By February 13, SOOE, plaintiff musL serv s disclosures 

pursuant to Rule 26(a) (11, Fed. R. L'i-1. P. A1 February 19, 

2008, plaintiff musc serve its responses to a1 

requests made by defendants prior to ~ebruary 

Plaintiff' s president Ann McAlear must appe~r New York Clty 

for de~cqsi t ion, pi-+f erably during early March. 

prepared to state the full particulars of plai 

claims; she must ill specify each statement th 

contends were fraudulent, (2) identlfy the spe 

statement, and ldent~fy each oth~r person who present or 

received the statement, (3) sLate when and whe 

was made, and (41 explain why eazh statement w 

After the deposition of Ms. MeAlear, plaintiff 

deposirion of a knowledgeable prson from Chi1 ft. By March 

31, 2008, plaintiff must serve the disclosure ired by Rule 

26 (a) (2 ! iA! , namely "the identlty of any perso o may be used 

at trial to present cvidence under Rules 702, , or 705 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence." 

Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 45 Filed 02/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
Telephone: (212! 

Dated: New York, New York 

February 14, 2008 

Copies of this Memorandum and Order are being 

electronic filing to: 

Edward J. Carroll, Esq. at fax 

David M. Fine, Esq. at fax 212-506-5151fax 

Anthony S. Baish, Esq. at fax 

! 

I 

I i 

I 

I 

! 

I I 

,, 

I I I ! I 

: I 

, I 

I 

I 

; I I' 

I I 

I 

! 

, I 

I: 

Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 45 Filed 02/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
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 annual Report of Gameplan, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K as amended for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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:





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





the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







/s/ Robert G. Berry

Name: Robert G. Berry

Title:  Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Robert G. Berry

Name: Robert G. Berry

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 565 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 565

 To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the 
    United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Naval 
             Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

   Mr. Brown of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Barrett of South 
  Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the 
    United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Naval 
             Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER INDIVIDUALS DETAINED 
              AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO NAVAL CONSOLIDATED BRIG, 
              CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.

    None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any 
Federal department or agency may be used to transfer any individual 
detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
to Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15125-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13