alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Anthony Hicks, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Otter Tail Ag Enterprises, LLC;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of governors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 19, 2008

 
|   | /s/ Anthony Hicks       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Anthony Hicks           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Filed: July 26, 2000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1206 (CA-98-3091-WMN) Brian P. Nichols, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Comast Cablevision of Maryland, Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER The court amends its opinion filed June 21, 2000, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, line 2 -- the lower court judge is corrected to read “Beth P. Gesner, Magisrate Judge.” For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor ClerkUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1206 BRIAN P. NICHOLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMCAST CABLEVISION OF MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98- 3091-WMN) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian P. Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Ned Sanford Kodeck, Ari Jason Kodeck, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Brian P. Nichols appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in his employment discriminationaction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nichols v. Comcast Cablevision , No. CA-98-3091-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2000). We dispense withoral 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 1:10CR27SPM

CABIOCH BONTEMPS

 /

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO

GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE COURT

DESIGNATED TIMELINE TO FILE MOTION RESPONSES

The Defendant, CABIOCH BONTEMPS, through undersigned, hereby notices this

Court of his opposition to the government’s request to temporarily suspend the timeline set

forth by this Court as it relates to pretrial motions and provides the following as background

to this position: 

1. Defendant Bontemps filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on January 6,

2012, which complied with the Court’s Order of December 28, 2011, which set filing and

reply deadlinesfor motionsto dismiss. See Docket Entry 179. Defendant Bontempsfiled his

motion under seal and electronically served a copy upon lead government counsel, Adriana

Vieco on January 6, 2012. 

2. The position of Mr. Bontemps is that the government should be required to

respond to his pending motion to dismiss apart from whether or not a second superseding

indictment will be returned.

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ Document 191 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, Defendant CABIOCH BONTEMPS opposes the government’s

request to suspend the timelines set by this Court’s previous Order.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

electronically furnished to Assistant United States AttorneyFrank Williams, 300 E. University

Avenue, Third Floor, Gainesville, Florida 32601, Adriana Vieco and Roy Conn, Trial

Attorneys, CivilRights Division, U. S. Department ofJustice, 601 D Street NW, Room 5542,

Washington, DC 20530; Lloyd Vipperman,15 S.E. 7th Street, Gainesville, FL 32601; and to

Huntley Johnson, 226 S.W. 2nd Street, Gainesville, FL 32601, on January 10, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

RANDOLPH P. MURRELL

Federal Public Defender

 By: s/Darren J. Johnson 

Darren J. Johnson

Assistant Federal Public Defender

New York Bar No. 4056800

101 S. E. 2nd Place, Suite 112

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 373-5823

Case 1:10-cr-00027-SPM-GRJ Document 191 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2
#### SIMONS v. GEORGIADE

No. 158P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 483.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41670

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD DAVID COLONE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CR-253-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Ronald David Colone

(“Colone”) has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Colone has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41670

-2-

counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal

is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Order entered January 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01126-CV

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellant

V.

ERIC SCZEPANIK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-08775-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s January 14, 2013 unopposed second motion to extend time 

to file appellee’s brief. We GRANT appellee’s motion. Appellee’s brief shall be filed on or 

before January 28, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHAWN M. KESLING, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv151-MP-GRJ

LT. R. JERNIGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated September 23, 2011. (Doc. 40). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00151-MP-GRJ Document 47 Filed 11/22/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 99.3



                   MANAGEMENT REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
                      SERVICING OF SECURITIZED RECEIVABLES


March 27, 1998


Key Bank USA, National Association management is responsible for establishing
and maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized
receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
proper servicing of securitized receivables activity and balances. The system
contains monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct deficiencies as
they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal control
including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of
controls - and therefore can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to
servicing of securitized receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions,
the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

Key Bank USA, National Association management assessed its internal control over
servicing of securitized receivables as of December 31, 1997. This assessment
was based on criteria for effective internal control described in "Internal
Control- Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that Key Bank USA, National Association maintained effective internal
control over servicing of securitized receivables as of December 31, 1997.



      /S/ Craig T. Platt
------------------------------------------
Craig T. Platt
President and Chief Executive Officer
Key Consumer Acceptance Corporation
and
Senior Vice President
Key Bank USA, National Association


     /S/ John T. Largent, Jr.
------------------------------------------
John T. Largent, Jr.
Executive Vice President and
Group Manager of Loan Services
Key Services Corp.




                                   Page 19
#### MAYO v. CASUALTY CO.

No. 8 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 309.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 14 September 1972.
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 4 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 5 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 6 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 7 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 8 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 9 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 10 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 11 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 12 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 13 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 14 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 15 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 16 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 17 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 18 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 19 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 20 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 21 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 22 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 23 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 24 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 25 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 26 of 27
Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/10 Page 27 of 27
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL D. O’BRIEN, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00189-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated August 6, 2013. (Doc. 26). The parties have been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order.

2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (doc.

1) is DENIED.
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00189-MP-GRJ
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00433- CR

Ve r gie Euge ne G r e e nwood , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B- 03- 0945 -S, H ONO RAB LE THO MAS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Ve rg ie Eug ene G ree nw o o d f o r c e d h is w a y in to th e c o mp la inant’s re sidence and assa ulted her. Ajury

found him g uilty

of burg lary

of a ha bitation, and t h e co u rt i m posed an eig hteen- y ear

prison sentenc e. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 3 0. 02 (We st 2 003). App e lla nt’ s o nly contention on appe al is that his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive duringjury selec tion because he did not qu e sti on a pa ne lis t w ho state d th a t sh e ha d b e e n th e vic timof a sim ila r c ri me . We wi ll a ff

ir m. During the prosec utor’s voir dire, she asked the panelists if any of them had had a n experience that would make it difficult to be impar tial in a trial fo r b u rgl ary and assa ult. Several panelists indicated that they had. One, identified in the rec ord as “ prospec tive juror” a nd addre ssed by the pr os e c uto r as “ ma ’a m,” sa id that she ha d “su ff e re d an a ssa

ult and a tte mpt e d bur g lary , b ut i t
was a number of y ear s ag o” and that “I do think I

could be f

air.” Appellant asse rts that his attorney failed to spea

k further to this panelist and thereby rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e.2 At the conclusion of his ow n voir dire, a ppellant’s counse l asked the pa nelists if any of them knewa re ason “why y ou couldn’t be a fair and impartial, unbiased and ce rtainlyan openmin de d ju

ro r. ” A p ane lis t id e nti fi e d a s “ pr os pe c tiv e jur or ” and a dd re sse d by c ouns e l a s “ ma ’a m” responde d, “I ’ve a lrea dy

stated—.” Counsel interr upted, saying “I know what y ou said, and I believe there was somebody

else ove r her e, and Ms. Ry an.” Although it is impossibl e to be sure , the unidentified pa nelist who spoke up during counsel’s voir dir e may

have be en the same pane list who earlier spoke to the p ro secutor. I n any event, it is clea

r that def ense c ounsel was c oncer

ned about the issue of

potential bias. I n the abse nce of any ev i d en ce to the contra

ry , we must presume that counsel e x erc ised rea sonable prof essional judgme nt during j u ry

selec tion and used his pere mptory strikes in a manne r ca lculated to prote ct appellant’ s rig hts. Se e J

ac k so n v . S tat e , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Finding no merit to appellant’s sole c laim on appea l, we affi rm the judg ment of conviction.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Jul y

13, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### STATE v. LANG

No. 438P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 117.

Cross-petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on FormS-8 (No. 333-135076, No. 333-116930, No. 333-107525, No. 333-90045, No. 333-77943, No. 333-33038, No. 333-39396, No. 333-67692, No. 333-70334 and No. 333-145280) of Autobytel Inc. and subsidiaries (theCompany) of our report dated March 17, 2008 related to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen 

Irvine, CA 

March 11, 2009
| (1)   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Jumpkicks, Inc. for the quarter ended      April 30, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended April 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Jumpkicks,      Inc.. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Richard Douglas                                                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Richard      Douglas                                                            |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | June      12, 2008                                                              |
# C_2009209EN.01000601.xml

| 4.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 September 2009

2009/C 209/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4335 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4438 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3138 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5143 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6200 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,615 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 273,95 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1210 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2405 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1549 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7037 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5742 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,1108 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1025 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0620 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 784,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1046 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7915 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3455 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 493,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0574 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,824 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,3400 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,817 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6780 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,4120 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,1200 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4335

JPY

Japanese yen

132,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4438

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87470

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3138

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5143

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6200

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,615

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

273,95

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1210

RON

Romanian leu

4,2405

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1549

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7037

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5742

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,1108

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1025

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0620

KRW

South Korean won

1 784,75

ZAR

South African rand

11,1046

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7915

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3455

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 493,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0574

PHP

Philippine peso

69,824

RUB

Russian rouble

45,3400

THB

Thai baht

48,817

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6780

MXN

Mexican peso

19,4120

INR

Indian rupee

70,1200

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-15 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-15 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 2