alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DIEMER & WEI, LLP 

Kathryn S. Diemer (#133977) 

100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 555 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Telephone: 408-971-6270 

Facsimile: 408-971-6271 

Email: kdiemer@diemerwei.com 

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 

Matthew A. Feldman (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joseph G. Minias (admitted pro hac vice) 

Antonio Yanez (admitted pro hac vice) 

787 Seventh Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-6099 

Telephone: (212) 728-8000 

Facsimile: (212) 728-8111 

Email: mfeldman@willkie.com 

 jminias@willkie.com 

 ayanez@willkie.com 

 

Counsel for Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 

 -andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Case No. 19-30088 DM 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR ADMISSION OF ANTONIO 

YANEZ, JR. PRO HAC VICE

Signed and Filed: August 15, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

August 15, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3565 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:52:53 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Antonio Yanez, Jr., whose business address and telephone number is 

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 

Antonio Yanez, Jr. 

787 Seventh Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-6099 

Telephone: (212) 728-8000 

Facsimile: (212) 728-8111 

Email: ayanez@willkie.com 

Is an active member in good standing of the bar of New York, having applied in the above-entitled 

action for admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis, 

representing the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and 

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac vice. 

Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application will 

constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the 

Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

** END OF ORDER ** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3565 Filed: 08/15/19 Entered: 08/15/19 18:52:53 Page 2 of

2
#### Thomas Rutherford, Appellant, v. The Village of Holly Respondent.

— Motion for re-argument denied.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3423 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:55:07 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3423 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:55:07 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3423 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:55:07 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3423 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:55:07 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3423 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:55:07 Page 5 of

5
#### William H. Miller and others, Respondents, v. Edward Benjamin and another, Appellants.

— Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed* with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
#### Horace B. Claflin and others, Appellants, v. James G. Dubois, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7585

WILLIAM HILL, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus JOYCE FRANCIS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GILMER; BUREAU OF PRISONS, a/k/a B.O.P., a/k/a Federal Bureau of Prisons; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, a/k/a Federal Department of Justice, a/k/a United States Department of Justice; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERTO GONZALEZ, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00080-IMK) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hill, Appellant Pro Se.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: William Hill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Francis , No. 1:06-cv-00080-IMK (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
CPSM, Inc. Exhibit 10.1

  
 
 


 Exhibit D
 

 Custom Pool Plastering is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPSM, Inc.
 

 The following table sets forth the names of all of our current executive officers and directors who serve for both CPSM, Inc. and Custom Pool Plastering.
 

 	 	
	 

	 


	 Name
	 Positions Held

	 Lawrence Calarco
	 CEO

	  
	 Director

	  
	  

	 Charles Dargan II
	 CFO

	  
	 Director

	  
	 Principal Accounting Officer

	  
	  

	 Loreen Calarco
	 Secretary

	  
	 Director

	  
	  

	 Jeffrey Michel
	 Director


 

 The following table sets forth, as of March 29, 2016, the number and percentage of CPSM, Inc.’s outstanding common shares owned by (i) each person known to us to beneficially own more than 5% of its outstanding common stock, (ii) each director, (iii) each named executive officer and significant employee, and (iv) all officers and directors as a group.
 	 	 	
	 

	 

	 



 Name and Address of Stockholder
 Shares
 % Owned
 Lawrence & Loreen Calarco(1)
 65,440,471 indirect
 78.51%
   5021 SW Saint Creek Drive
   Palm City, FL 34990
 

 Charles Dargan II
 100,000
 0.12%
 819 S. Ruby Drive
 Key Largo, FL 33037
 

 Jeffrey Michel
 0
 0.00%
 177 N US Highway One, Suite 146
 Tequesta, FL 33469
 

 Officers and Directors as a Group
    (4 persons)
 65,440,471 indirect
 78.51%
 100,000 direct
 0.12%
 

 (1)Based on 83,355,960 common shares outstanding as of March 29, 2016.
 (2)Lawrence and Loreen Calarco, officers and directors of the Company, are husband and wife, and control these shares through the Lawrence & Loreen Calarco Family Trust.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4829 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2014 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, 

Mr. COBLE, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mrs. ELLMERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on 

the National Highway System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Route to Opportunity 

5 And Development Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘ROAD Act of 

6 2014’’. 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4829 IH

1 SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGH2 WAY SYSTEM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal 

4 Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended 

5 by striking paragraph (13) and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(13) Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, 

7 North Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, 

8 and Elizabeth City, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Vir9 ginia.’’. 

10 (b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON

11 INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the 

12 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

13 is amended by inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(13),’’ after ‘‘sub14 section (c)(9),’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2357 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2357

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit retired members of the 
    Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive 
      military retired pay concurrently with veterans' disability 
                             compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2000

  Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit retired members of the 
    Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive 
      military retired pay concurrently with veterans' disability 
                             compensation.

    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 ``Armed Forces Concurrent Retirement 
and Disability Payment Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. CONCURRENT PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION FOR RETIRED 
              MEMBERS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

    (a) Concurrent Payment.--Section 5304(a) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) and section 
5305 of this title, compensation under chapter 11 of this title may be 
paid to a person entitled to receive retired or retirement pay 
described in such section 5305 concurrently with such person's receipt 
of such retired or retirement pay.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and apply with 
respect to payments of compensation for months beginning on or after 
that date.
    (c) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits shall be paid 
to any person by virtue of the amendment made by subsection (a) for any 
period before the effective date of this Act as specified in subsection 
(b).
                                 <all>
```
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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Silver Reserve
      Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form
      10-KSB”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
      in
      the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      September 19, 2008





/s/
                Todd D. MontgomeryTodd
                D. Montgomery, CEO and Director(Chief
                Executive Officer of Silver Reserve
                Corp.)





Dated:
      September 19, 2008





/s/
                Randal LudwarRandal
                Ludwar, Chief Financial Officer(Chief
                Financial Officer of Silver Reserve
                Corp.)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Silver Reserve Corp. and will be retained by Silver Reserve Corp. and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
* 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. 07-60373 Summary Calendar

TAO YANG Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 819 912
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tao Yang, a native and citizen ofChina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen his 1999 removal proceedings. Yang sought to have the BIA reopen the proceedings pursuant to its sua sponte authority in 8 C.F.R . § 1003.2(a). The BIA determined that Yang’s motion was time and number barred, that ineffective assistance could not excuse his failure tofile a timely motion to reopen, and that equitable tolling was not warranted because Yang had not exercised due United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60373

2 diligence. Yang argues that the BIA erred in denying the motion because he established exceptional ci rcumstances based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He also asserts that the time and number limitations should be equitably tolled due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the BIA has complete discretion in deciding whether to reopen removal proceedingssua sponte, s ee§ 1003.2(a), there is nomeaningful standard against which to review this decision, and this court lacks jurisdiction over it. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004). Even if equitable tolling appli es to motions to reopen and Yang’s equitable tolling arguments could be considered, he has not established that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that he was not entitled toequitable tolling because he had not shown due diligence. See Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The petition for review is DENIED.
#### STATE v. A. W. HARDIE.

(Filed 18 October, 1939.)

1. Barbers § 3; Indictment § 30—

The indictment charged defendant with practicing barbering “without first obtaining a certificate of registration.” The evidence tended to show that defendant practiced barbering after his license had been revoked. *Held:*There is a fatal variance between the indictment and proof, proof of lack of a license not being proof of lack of a certificate of registration.

3. Statutes § 8—

Penal statutes must be strictly construed.

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*at August Term, 1939, of Wilkes.

Reversed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, for the State.*

*Trivette & Holshouser for defendant, appellant.*

Schenck, J.

The bill of indictment charges “that A. W. Hardie, . . .. on the 7th day of October, 1938, . . . unlawfully and willfully for pay practiced barbering . . . without first obtaining a certificate of registration, either as a registered apprentice or as a registered barber, from the State Board of Barber Examiners, . . The bill is drawn in accord with secs. 1 and 21, ch. 119, Public Laws 1929, as amended by sec. 6, ch. 138, Public Laws 1937. (Michie’s N. C. Code of 1935, secs. 5003 [a] and 5003 [u].)

The State called but one witness, namely, one J. M. Cheek, who testified to the effect that he was a member of the North Carolina Board of Barber Examiners, that he saw the defendant on 8 October, 1938, and on various later dates, cutting the hair of and shaving various persons for pay, and that the defendant “did not have a license” — that he knew that the defendant did “not have a license to practice barbering” upon the dates mentioned. On cross-examination the witness testified that the defendant at one time “held a license to practice barbering,” and on redirect examination that such license was revoked, “and subsequent thereto the State Board did not issue to the defendant a new certificate as a barber.” The date or time of the revocation of the license does not appear from the evidence.

It will be noted that the bill charges that the defendant practiced barbering without first obtaining a “certificate of registration” and the *347proof is tbat the defendant practiced barbering without having a license. The term “certificate of registration” is not once used in the testimony of the witness, the nearest approach to such use being in the last sentence thereof, when the witness stated that the defendant’s license was revoked, “and subsequent thereto the State Board did not issue to the defendant a new certificate as a barber.”

The evidence does not support the charge — there is a fatal variance between the *allegata*and the *probata.*The crime for which the defendant was being tried being a statutory offense, the statute must be construed strictly in favor of the defendant and against the State. *S. v. Heath,*199 N. C., 135. When this rule of construction is applied the proof of the lack of a license cannot be construed as proof of lack of a certificate of registration.

The judgment of the Superior Court is

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WAJEER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73809

Agency No. A075-307-139

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010 ** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Wajeer Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUL 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73809

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,

964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because Singh failed to present material, previously unavailable evidence of

changed circumstances in India, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Singh failed to

establish prima facie eligibility to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention

Against Torture, see Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To

qualify for reopening under the Torture Convention, an alien must establish a

prima facie case that ‘it is more likely than not that ... she would be tortured if

removed to the proposed country of removal.’ ”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2));

see also Cano-Merida, 311 F.3d at 966.

Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the

relevant facts because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed

the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to substantiate its decision is belied by the

agency’s order.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 1 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 2 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 3 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 4 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 5 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 6 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 7 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 8 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3053    Filed: 07/18/19    Entered: 07/18/19 11:27:16    Page 9 of9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 289 Filed: 02/04/19 Entered: 02/04/19 17:50:42 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 518 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 518

 To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 
for the purposes of extending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
        Relief Act of 1991 through 2018, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2013

  Mr. Markey (for himself, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New 
Mexico, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Holt, Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. Chu, Ms. 
Slaughter, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Rangel) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 
for the purposes of extending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
        Relief Act of 1991 through 2018, 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. DROUGHT RELIEF.

    (a) Termination of Authority.--Section 104(c) of the Reclamation 
States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) is 
amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 301 of the 
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 
2241) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``90,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$110,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.

SEC. 2. CLIMATE VARIABILITY REVIEW.

    Subsection (e) of section 203 of the Reclamation States Emergency 
Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2223(e)) is amended as follows:
    ``(e) Review.--The contingency plans shall include provisions for 
periodic review to assure adequacy of the contingency plan to respond 
to current conditions, as well as address projected long-term climate 
variability and change, and such plans may be modified accordingly.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report of Forster Drilling Corporation (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bud
        Najvar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
        Bud Najvar
 Bud
        Najvar,
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 July
        24,
        2006