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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5862 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to authority of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to consolidate, modify, or reorganize 

Customs revenue functions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2023 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself and Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to 

authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 

consolidate, modify, or reorganize Customs revenue functions. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5862 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

2 PROTECTION TO CONSOLIDATE, MODIFY, OR 

3 REORGANIZE CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNC4 TIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 412 of the Homeland Se6 curity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

9 (i) by striking ‘‘consolidate, dis10 continue,’’ and inserting ‘‘discontinue’’; 

11 and 

12 (ii) by inserting after ‘‘reduce the 

13 staffing level’’ the following: ‘‘below the op14 timal staffing level determined in the most 

15 recent Resource Allocation Model required 

16 by section 301(h) of the Customs Proce17 dural Reform and Simplification Act of 

18 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(h))’’; and 

19 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, Na20 tional Account Managers, and International 

21 Trade Analysts’’ after ‘‘Financial Systems Spe22 cialists’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(d) AUTHORITY TO CONSOLIDATE, MODIFY, OR RE25 ORGANIZE CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNCTIONS.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5862 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of U.S. 

2 Customs and Border Protection may, subject to sub3 section (b), consolidate, modify, or reorganize cus4 toms revenue functions delegated to the Commis5 sioner under subsection (a), including by adding 

6 such functions to existing positions or establishing 

7 new or modifying existing job series, grades, titles, 

8 or classifications for personnel, and associated sup9 port staff, performing such functions. 

10 ‘‘(2) POSITION CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS.— 

11 At the request of the Commissioner, the Director of 

12 the Office of Personnel Management shall establish 

13 new position classification standards for any new po14 sitions established by the Commissioner under para15 graph (1).’’. 

16 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 412(a)(1) of 

17 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(a)(1)) 

18 is amended by striking ‘‘403(a)(1)’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘403(1)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11430]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-440]


Cleveland Electric Illuminating and Ohio Edison Company, et al.; 
Notice of Transfer of Ownership of Perry Nuclear Power Plant

    Notice is hereby given that the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) is considering approval under Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 50.80, of the transfer of 
12.58-percent ownership of the facilities for the Perry Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP Unit 1) from the Ohio Edison Company (Ohio 
Edison) to a wholly owned subsidiary of Ohio Edison, OES Nuclear, Inc. 
(OES). By ``Supplemental Application For License Transfer,'' submitted 
under cover of letter dated December 29, 1995, from Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts and Trowbridge, Ohio Edison informed the Commission that it 
intends to transfer to OES a 12.58-percent ownership interest in the 
PNPP Unit 1 ``common facilities.'' This request supplements an earlier 
request to transfer a 17.42-percent ownership interest in PNPP Unit 1 
from Ohio Edison to OES, which the NRC approved by Order dated December 
20, 1995. Further, OES has been added to Operating License No. NPF-58 
as an owner of PNPP Unit 1, by Amendment No. 81, dated February 27, 
1996.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the Commission may approve the transfer 
of a license, after notice to interested persons, upon the Commission's 
determination that the holder of the license following the transfer of 
control is qualified to be a holder of the license and the transfer of 
the control is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, 
regulations and orders of the Commission. Ohio Edison has requested 
consent under 10 CFR 50.80 to transfer of the license effectuated by 
the change in control of such ownership interest in PNPP Unit 1.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the December 
29, 1995, letter and accompanying submittal, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, 
Perry, Ohio.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of May 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gail H. Marcus,
Director, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor Projects--III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-11430 Filed 5-07-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6685

DEMETRIOUS ERIC BROWN, a/k/a Denrick Eric

Brown, a/k/a Demmrick Eric Brown,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; GENE M. JOHNSON,

Deputy; REFUS FLEMING, Regional Director;

DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; S. J. AVENT,

Administrative Assistant Warden; J. D. OATHS,

Medical Administrator for the Virginia

Department of Corrections; J. CAPPS, Human

Rights Advocate; CHARLES ALLEN, Unit Manager;

B. PHILLIPS, Medical Administrator for CMS;

ELLA KLUG, Regional Administrator for CMS;

BETH KENNEDY, Regional Manager for CMS; MIKE

PFEIFFER, Medical Operation Manager for CMS;

ANNETTE HOLMES, Medical Administrator of CMS;

K. HAMLIN, Head Nurse for CMS; D. SLOAN, LPN

for CMS; C. MANNING, LPN for CMS; ROY P.

HARRIS, Prison Guard, Lieutenant; VINCENT M.

GORE, Doctor for CMS; M. VERNON SMITH, Doctor,

Health Care Director; DOCTOR SWETHER; DOCTOR

SALIH; GLORIA SLOAN; ROY J. HARRISON,

Lieutenant; DOCTOR SWETTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-144-AM)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002
2

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrious Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John D. McChesny, RAWLS

& NCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Demetrious Eric Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s

motion to appoint counsel, and affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Brown v. Angelone, No. CA-01-144-AM (E.D. Va.,

filed Mar. 28, 2002; entered Mar. 29, 2002). 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
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA** Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22 - 0578

______________________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaint iff and Appellee, v. THOMAS M. GREGORY,

Defendant and Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________ **ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF** 

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal fro m th e Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus Count y, Montana Cause No. DC - 14 - 2021 - 0000013

Honorable Heather Perry

_________________________________________________ _____________________________ 

### UPON Appellant’s Unopposed Motion, and good cause appearing therein; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is granted. Appellant shall have up to, and including, Fr iday , March 24 , 2023, to file reply br ie f

. No f urther extensio ns will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2023

03/09/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0578
First Amendment to Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 BY AND BETWEEN 
 CURIS, INC. 
 AND 
 JOSEPH M. DAVIE, Ph.D., M.D. 
 OCTOBER 30, 2006 
 This First Amendment
(“Amendment”), effective as of October 30, 2006 (“Amendment Date”), is made by and between Curis, Inc., having a place of business at 61 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (“Curis”), and Joseph M. Davie, Ph.D.,
M.D. (“Consultant”). Curis and Consultant may each be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to make certain changes to the Consulting Agreement entered into between the Parties on June 19, 2006 (“Agreement”) as further specified in this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amend to read as follows: 
 “3. Compensation. In consideration for the services rendered by Consultant to Curis during the term of this Agreement, Curis shall pay Consultant compensation in the amount of Four Thousand dollars
($4,000.00) per day for each day of consulting work, or Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) per hour for portions thereof of consulting work performed on behalf of Curis. Payment of such amounts will be made upon Curis’ approval of a detailed
invoice from Consultant. Curis shall reimburse Consultant for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of his duties hereunder as requested by Curis upon presentation of reasonably detailed receipts.” 
 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same. 
  

							
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY:	    		 	
		
	Consultant	    	Curis, Inc.
				
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Joseph M. Davie
	    	Signature:	 	 /s/ Michael P. Gray

	Name:	 	Joseph M. Davie	    	Name:	 	Michael P. Gray
	SS#:	 	  
	    	Title:	 	CFO
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7142** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. UNDER SEAL , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00058

- JPB

- JSK

- 1; 3:12

- cv - 00045

- JPB )

Submitted : December 22, 2014 Decided: January 8, 2015

Before WILKINSON , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Jarod James Douglas , Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant United States A ttorney, Wheeling, West Virginia , for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the con stitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispos itive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Appellant has not made the requisite showi ng. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional p rocess.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Barbra E. Kocsis,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC;

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

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport 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 that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

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

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, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 14, 2006                      |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                         |                 |   |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |                      |  |  |

 

18

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 593 

To rename the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 

clinic in Hinesville, Georgia, as the ‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, William 

Sapp, and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. 

MCCORMICK, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. 

DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mrs. MCBATH, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Georgia, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, 

and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To rename the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Hinesville, Georgia, as the 

‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, William Sapp, and Frankie 

Smiley VA Clinic’’. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 593 IH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

3 HINESVILLE, GEORGIA. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs community5 based outpatient clinic in Hinesville, Georgia, shall after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, William Sapp, 

8 and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic’’. Any reference to such 

9 clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or 

10 other paper of the United States shall be considered to 

11 be a reference to the John Gibson, Dan James, William 

12 Sapp, and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results
of the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ Gregory A. WhiteGregory A. WhiteChief Financial Officer and TreasurerSeptember 28, 2005
#### Carmen PARTNEY and Bina Partney, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. R. Winston REED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17869.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 18, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 8, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1992.

Christina L. Mell, L. Dwayne Hackworth Law Offices, Piedmont, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Jeffrey P. Hine, Oliver, Oliver, Waltz & Cook, P.C., Cape Girardeau, for defendant-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

Summary judgment was entered for plaintiff on their petition on June 10, 1991. Thereafter, on October 15, 1991, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim was sustained.1

Defendant timely appealed. One of defendant’s points on appeal states that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the counterclaim because plaintiffs' motion failed to state with particularity the grounds. Except for caption and signature, the motion stated:

> Come now Plaintiffs, Carmen Partney and Bina Partney, his wife, by and through their attorney, L. Dwayne Hack-worth, and pursuant to Rule 74.04 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure move this Court to enter its Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Defendant’s Counterclaim.

> In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submit herewith a Memorandum of Law, the deposition of Defendant, R. Winston Reed and the affidavit of Carmen Part-ney.

It is apparent that the motion does not comply with Rule 74.04(c) which requires that a motion for summary judgment “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor”. As it did not, the motion was defective and the order sustaining the motion must be reversed and the cause remanded. *Johns v. Continental Western Ins, Co.,*802 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1991); *Mercantile Bank of Sikeston v. Moore,*792 S.W.2d 653 (Mo.App.1990).2

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

FLANIGAN, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, P.J., concur.

1

. These orders, together with defendant’s dismissal of his third-party petition, disposed of all issues and parties. Therefore, there was a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. See *MaGee*v. *Blueridge Professional Bldg,*821 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Mo. banc 1991).

2

. The purpose of requiring the motion to state the grounds with particularity is set forth in *Barkley v. Carter County State Bank,*791 S.W.2d 906, 915 (Mo.App.1990). See also *Johns,*802 S.W.2d at 199; *Commerce Bank of Joplin, N.A. v. Willis,*785 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Mo.App.1990).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5547 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to protect access to genetically 

targeted technologies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Mr. NICKEL (for himself, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, and Mr. DAVIS of 

North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XI of the Social Security Act to protect 

access to genetically targeted technologies. 

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 ‘‘Maintaining Invest5 ments in New Innovation Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5547 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF QUALIFYING SIN2 GLE SOURCE DRUG. 

3 Section 1192(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 1320f–1(e)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, 

6 in the case of an advanced drug product (as defined 

7 in paragraph (4)), 11 years)’’ after ‘‘7 years’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(4) ADVANCED DRUG PRODUCT DEFINED.— 

11 For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the term ‘ad12 vanced drug product’ means a drug that incor13 porates or utilizes a genetically targeted technology 

14 (as defined in section 529A(c)(2) of the Federal 

15 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) that may result in 

16 the modulation (including suppression, up-regula17 tion, or activation) of the function of a gene or its 

18 associated gene product.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 quarterly Report of Derby Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Frank Pioppi, Chief Executive 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  June 10, 2009 /s/Frank Pioppi     Chief Executive Officer