alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7202

DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KEITH E. OLSON, Warden, FCI Beckley,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CA-97-660)

Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 15, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Marquis Fleming appeals the district court's orders

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994),

and the court's orders denying his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error in the court's denial of § 2241 relief.

See United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000)

(stating that appellate court reviews denial of § 2241 petition de

novo). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district

court's denial of Fleming's Rule 59(e) motions. See Pacific Ins.

Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir.

1998) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104

(1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Fleming v. Olson, No. CA-97-660 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 24,

1997; Dec. 22, 1997; June 8, 1998; Oct. 14, 1998; July 7, 1999;

July 27, 1999). We deny Fleming's motions for a limited remand and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HENRY JAMES HOLMES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 153 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-218/RS-EMT

FOX GARDEN APARTMENTS LTD.

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

U ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) indicating that a settlement 

has been reached. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is directed to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

ORDERED on December 8, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00218-RS-EMT Document 23 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HUBERT BABB,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv205/MCR/MD

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on June 16, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is

adopted as the opinion of the Court.

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 and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5180 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5180

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide protections 
         for employees receiving tips, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2018

Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide protections 
         for employees receiving tips, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tip Income Protection (TIP) Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR TIPS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 
              1938.

    Section 3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
203(m)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``receive tips.'' and inserting ``receive 
        tips if such employees have elected for the pooling of such 
        tips.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Except in the 
        case of the pooling of tips as described in the previous 
        sentence, all tips received by any employee, including an 
        employee that is not a tipped employee shall be the property 
        of, and retained by, the employee, including in the case of an 
        employer that pays a tipped employee a cash wage that equals or 
        exceeds the minimum wage under section 6(a).''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NEW VIEW INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-174/RS-CJK

MCCRORY BUILDING CO. INC.

and TRAVELERS CASUALTY &

SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested in Defendant Travelers Casualty & Insurance Company of 

America’s Amended Unopposed Motion to Stay Action Pending Arbitration (Doc. 48) is 

GRANTED. The stay shall be automatically terminated upon completion of the 

arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant McCrory Building Company Incorporated or 

November 30, 2011, whichever occurs first. 

ORDERED on July 14, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00174-RS-CJK Document 50 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 1
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5418 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

the Medical Surgical Prime Vendor program using multiple prime vendors. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5418 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Affairs Med3 ical-Surgical Purchasing Stabilization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MEDICAL SURGICAL PRIME VENDOR PROGRAM. 

5 (a) VENDORS.—In procuring certain medical, sur6 gical, and dental supplies or laboratory supplies for med7 ical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 

8 Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall carry out the Medical 

9 Surgical Prime Vendor program, or successor program, in 

10 a manner that— 

11 (1) requires the Secretary to award contracts to 

12 multiple regional prime vendors instead of a single 

13 nationwide prime vendor; and 

14 (2) prohibits a prime vendor from solely design15 ing the formulary of such supplies. 

16 (b) CLINICALLY DRIVEN SOURCING.— 

17 (1) EXPERTISE.—In carrying out the formulary 

18 of supplies under the Medical Surgical Prime Vendor 

19 program, or successor program, the Secretary shall 

20 ensure that each employee of the Department of 

21 Veterans Affairs who conducts formulary analyses or 

22 makes decisions with respect to including items on 

23 the formulary has medical expertise relevant to the 

24 items for which the employee conducts such analyses 

25 or makes such decisions. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5418 RFS 

1 (2) LISTS.—Not later than 30 days after the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly 

3 thereafter with respect to any updates, the Secretary 

4 shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs 

5 of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 

6 list of each employee described in paragraph (1) and 

7 the relevant medical expertise of the employee, listed 

8 by the categories of items in the formulary described 

9 in such paragraph. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2010038EN.01000201.xml

| 16.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 February 2010

2010/C 38/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3607 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4437 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86760 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8805 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4661 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0530 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,002 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,38 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7085 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0168 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1150 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0611 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5304 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4253 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5736 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9510 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9203 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 572,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,4855 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2977 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3093 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 722,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6609 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,973 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,1370 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,155 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5284 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5857 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,0340 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3607

JPY

Japanese yen

122,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4437

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86760

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8805

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4661

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0530

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,002

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,38

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7085

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0168

RON

Romanian leu

4,1150

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0611

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5304

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4253

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5736

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9510

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9203

KRW

South Korean won

1 572,96

ZAR

South African rand

10,4855

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2977

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3093

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 722,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6609

PHP

Philippine peso

62,973

RUB

Russian rouble

41,1370

THB

Thai baht

45,155

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5284

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5857

INR

Indian rupee

63,0340

---

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

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHARON HIERS, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-306/RS-MD

MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

This case has been stayed since February 8, 2011 so that the Parties could conduct 

binding arbitration (See Doc. 15). The Arbitrator has now been selected and the Parties 

are working to establish an arbitration procedure (See Doc. 29). The current pace is 

unduly sluggish. The Parties are instructed to resolve the arbitration procedures in good 

faith not later than July 1, 2011, and to complete arbitration not later than August 31, 

2011. 

ORDERED on June 2, 2011. 

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00306-RS-CJK Document 31 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 1
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5254 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study 

on the feasibility of expanding eligibility for enrollment in Medicare 

Advantage plans to individuals enrolled under the Medicaid program 

or enrolled under a group health plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2018 

Mr. BUDD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

conduct a study on the feasibility of expanding eligibility 

for enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans to individuals enrolled under the Medicaid program or enrolled 

under a group health plan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STUDY OF EXPANSION OF MEDICARE ADVAN4 TAGE ELIGIBILITY. 

5 Not later than December 31, 2020, the Secretary of 

6 Health and Human Services shall conduct a study and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5254 IH

1 submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of expanding 

2 eligibility for enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans of3 fered under part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–21 et seq.) to individuals enrolled 

5 under a State plan (or a waiver of such plan) under title 

6 XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) or enrolled in 

7 a group health plan (as defined in section 2791 of the 

8 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–91)). Such 

9 report shall include an analysis of whether such an expan10 sion— 

11 (1) would increase access to health care for 

12 such individuals; and 

13 (2) lead to lower health care costs for such indi14 viduals. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.30


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”)
dated as of September 22, 2007, was entered into by and between Fred’s Inc. (“Company”) and Bruce A. Efird (“Executive”),
as amended; and


 


WHEREAS, Company and Executive now desire
to further amend certain provisions of the Agreement:


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms
hereof and other good and valuable consideration of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.     
Paragraphs 5(a) is deleted entirely and in its place the following shall be added:


 


5.          (a) This
Agreement shall continue unless and until terminated by either party, with or without cause, upon written notice of termination
and effective upon not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other (except that such notice of termination may
be effective immediately in the case of termination by the Company for cause, for acts of Executive involving moral turpitude,
or for Executive’s breach of duty of loyalty). And provided further that Company may elect at its option for any termination
to be immediate once written notice is provided (such election shall not impact any benefits owed to Executive). If the Agreement
is terminated, hereunder, such salary compensation and any owed benefits paid to Executive under this Agreement shall not be less
than nor more than six (6) months salary. Provided further, that any non-compete under this Agreement shall only last so long as
Executive is paid a salary.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment
to the Agreement the 30th day of July 2014.


 


	Fred’s, Inc.	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mark C. Dely	 
	 	 
	Mark C. Dely	 
	Secretary	 
	 	 
	/s/ Bruce A. Efird	 
	 	 
	Bruce A. Efird	 
	Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard A. King, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

(a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and

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

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2011



/s/ Richard A. KingRichard A. KingChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDRES BAIN,

Agency No.: A087-397-397,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv12-MP/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus

under § 22411

 on January 11, 2011. Doc. 1. An order was entered directing service of

the petition on February 16, 2011. Doc. 4. On March 10, 2011, Respondents filed a

motion to dismiss asserting that this case is moot because Petitioner was "released

from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforecement (ICE) on January 11,

2011." Doc. 12, p. 1. The motion to dismiss states that Petitioner was released under

1

 Petitioner contends that Respondents are unable to effect his removal, yet

refuse to release him. Id., at 2. Petitioner, who is a native of the Bahamas, is not

challenging the validity of the removal order, only his indefinite detention under

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id., at 1-2.
Page 2 of 2

an order of supervision because "the government of the Bahamas declined to issue

Petitioner travel documents." Doc. 12, p. 2; see also Exhibit 1. 

Because Petitioner has been afforded the relief he sought, release from

detention, this § 2241 petition should be dismissed as moot. Furthermore, the docket

reveals that mail to Petitioner has already been returned as undeliverable because

Petitioner is no longer in detention. Doc. 7. Because Petitioner has not filed a notice of

change of address with this Court, it also appears that Petitioner has abandoned this

litigation in light of the fact that there is no longer a controversy between the parties. 

In light of the uncontested assertion by Respondents, it is respectfully

RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition filed by Petitioner Andres Bain be

DISMISSED as moot since he has been released from detention.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 14, 2011.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:11cv12-MP/WCS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEORGE RAYMOND JOHNSTON, III, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv21-MP-CAS

GLENN E. YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated February 22, 2012. (Doc. 75). 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. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 70) is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part.

3. Plaintiff's due process claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

4. The claims against Defendant Edouard and Baldridge are DISMISSED for

failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies.

Case 4:11-cv-00021-MP-CAS Document 87 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 70) is DENIED with regard to Plaintiff's

First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Young and Bozeman in their

individual capacities only and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 4:11cv21-MP-CAS

Case 4:11-cv-00021-MP-CAS Document 87 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      23.5**







INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
      National Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form S-1, File No. 333-133732,
      and Form S-8, File No. 333-133733, of our report dated November 28, 2006, on
      our
      audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of September
      30, 2006 and 2005 and for the years ended September 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
      which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.











/s/
      Marcum & Kliegman LLP





New
      York,
      New York


December
      4, 2006