alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reese
Baglole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of March, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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 this quarterly report of ChromaDex
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending October 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Frank L. Jaksch Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Thomas C. Varvaro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

1. The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 17, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ FRANK L. JAKSCH JR                     
|                        |  |  |  | Frank L. Jaksch Jr. Chief
Executive Officer
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ THOMAS C. VARVARO                      
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas C. Varvaro Chief
Financial Officer
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

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

Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANT MICHAEL LACEY’S 

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO 

AMEND HIS CONDITIONS OF 

PRETRIAL RELEASE (DOC. 503)

(Expedited oral argument requested)

Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully 

submits the instant supplement to his Motion to Amend his Conditions of Pretrial Release 

(“Motion”) (Doc. 503), which was filed on March 19, 2019. The attached Exhibit A, a letter from 

physician Fred S. Markham should have been included as Exhibit A to the Motion. We regret any 

inconvenience this may cause the Court. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of April, 2019, 

/s/ Erin E. McCampbell

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 525 Filed 04/17/19 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

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

On April 17, 2019, a PDF version

of this document was filed with

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

Following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

John Kucera, john.kucera@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Patrick Reid, Patrick.Reid@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Amanda Wick, Amanda.Wick@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 525 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 933 

Commending the Government of Japan for its current policy against currency 

manipulation and encouraging the Government of Japan to continue 

in this policy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. DINGELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the Government of Japan for its current policy 

against currency manipulation and encouraging the Government of Japan to continue in this policy. 

Whereas beginning in 1998 and continuing until 2004, Japan 

purchased hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign currency reserves, thus driving down the value of the Japanese yen relative to the United States dollar; 

Whereas direct intervention in currency markets was supplemented during that time by the Japanese government’s 

‘‘jawboning’’ about further moves to weaken the value of 

Japan’s currency; 

Whereas currency manipulation caused unfair gains in Japanese manufacturers’ collective share in the United States 

automobile market, as well as resulted in a $4,000 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:52 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR933.IH HR933

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 933 IH 

vehicle cost advantage for imported Japanese vehicles 

over United States-made vehicles in 2006, according to 

the Automotive Trade Policy Council; 

Whereas Toyota and Honda have indicated in annual reports 

that their net revenues were increased due to the exchange rate between the United States dollar and Japanese yen; 

Whereas the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of 

Agreement prohibit the use of currency manipulation as 

a method of gaining an unfair trade advantage; 

Whereas article XV of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures both suggest that 

currency manipulation in order to gain an unfair trading 

advantage would violate the intent of those agreements; 

Whereas The Financial Times reported in a September 28, 

2009, article that Hirohisa Fujii, the Japanese finance 

minister, announced Japan would not intervene to stem 

a recent rise in the value of the Japanese yen; and 

Whereas The Financial Times reported in an October 26, 

2009, article that Haruhiko Kuroda, president of the 

Asian Development Bank, said ‘‘China, Japan, and other 

east Asian countries must have ‘serious’ talks on currency cooperation to prevent a recurrence of violent fluctuations’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends the Government of Japan for its 

3 recent reversal in policy pertaining to currency ma4 nipulation; and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 933 IH 

1 (2) encourages the Government of Japan to 

2 maintain this new policy, thereby conforming to its 

3 responsibilities as a member of the International 

4 Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, 

5 as well as promoting free and fair international 

6 trade. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**EUGENE LAMBERT,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 62 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of July, 2015, the Application for Lea ve to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extr aordinary** 

**Relief is** GRANTED **to the extent it seeks mandamus relief. The Court of Common** 

**Pleas of Philadelphia County is** DIRECTED **to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending petition**

**within 90 days.**
H. Res. 921 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 19, 2009. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and 

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees 

of the House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Owens (to rank 

immediately after Mr. Murphy of New York). 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Owens (to 

rank immediately after Mr. Luja ́n). 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Mr. 

Garamendi (to rank immediately after Mr. Griffith). 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Garamendi. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Glenn B. McCormick

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Arizona State Bar No. 0013328

40 North Central, Ste. 1800

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: 602-514-7500

Email: glenn.mccormick@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant.

Case No. CR 18-00223-RCC (DTF)

NOTICE OF A S S O C I A T I O N

OF G O V E R N M E N T COUNSEL

NOTICE is hereby given to all interested parties, in accordance with Local Rule 

1.7(a) of the Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, that 

Assistant United States Attorney Glenn B. McCormick is associated in the matter above 

for the United States, to act as co-counsel to lead counsel Anna Wright and Nathaniel J. 

Walters.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2019.

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Glenn B. McCormick

GLENN B. MCCORMICK

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 359 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 28, 2019, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrant(s) under this file number:

Gregory Kuykendall

Katherine Franke

William Walker

Amy Pickering Knight

Attorneys for Defendants

s/ Glenn B. McCormick

United States Attorney’s Office

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 359 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2815-2816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1528]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-138-000]


EnergyOnline, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 24, 1996.
    On October 24, 1995, as amended November 20, 1995, EnergyOnline, 
Inc. (EnergyOnline) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which 
EnergyOnline will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. EnergyOnline also requested waiver of 
various Commission regulations. In particular, EnergyOnline requested 
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by 
EnergyOnline.
    On January 5, 1996, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject of the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by EnergyOnline should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, EnergyOnline is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of EnergyOnline's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 5, 1996. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the 

[[Page 2816]]
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1528 Filed 1-26-96;8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 CIVIL MINUTES – SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Phoenix Division 

CIV 18-621-PHX-DGC DATE: 8/9/2018 

Year Case No Initials 

Title: Satanic Temple, et.al., vs. City of Scottsdale, et.al., 

 Plaintiffs Defendants 

======================================================================= 

HON: DAVID G. CAMPBELL 

 Traci C. Abraham Christine Coaly 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

 APPEARANCES 

 Stuart Patrick deHaan 

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) 

 Joshua Crum 

 Attorney(s) for Defendant(s) 

======================================================================= 

PROCEEDINGS: X Open Court Chambers Other

Scheduling conference held. 

For reasons stated on the record, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted 

in part and denied in part. Doc. 8. The motion is granted as to the claims 

against the individual defendants and granted as to count 3 state law claims. 

The motion is denied as to count 1 establishment clause claim and count 2 

equal protection claim. 

Scheduling deadlines discussed and entered. Court will enter the case 

management order. 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 17 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2017 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: July 28, 2016

 

 

*/s/ Rod Bartlett*

Roderick Bartlett 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Peter Kozinets (602) 514-7500 09/14/2021

U.S. Attorney's Office

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix AZ 85004

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB Susan M. Brnovich 9/10/2021

U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et al. Phoenix AZ

✔

✔

Trial (AM session) 09/10/2021

✔ ✔

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov;marjorie.dieckman@usdoj.gov

s/Peter Kozinets (R21AZX90253)

09/14/2021

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1309 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 1
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).

AP/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ROMERO RODRIGUEZ;

ANTONIA CORDOVA ROMERO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-70067

Agency Nos. A075-475-746

 A075-475-750

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Luis Romero Rodriguez and Antonia Cordova Romero, husband and wife

and natives and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our

FILED

MAR 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AP/Research 2 06-70067

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny in part and dismiss

in part the petition for review. 

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion as

untimely because it was filed almost two years after the BIA’s final removal order. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days

after the final administrative decision was rendered). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua

sponte authority to reopen petitioners’ case, and we not persuaded by petitioners’

attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional bar. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,

1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua

sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion”) (italics and internal

citations omitted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Gail CARSON, Respondent, v. Julie ALLEN, Appellant.

No. 56897.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 17, 1990.

Baine & McHugh, Robert P. Baine, Jr., Arthur Aaron Hogg, Clayton, for appellant.

Sommer & Hartstein, Joseph P. Sommer, St. Louis, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff, in a bench trial, for damages to plaintiff’s automobile. The trial court found defendant was negligent and denied defendant’s counterclaim for personal injuries and damages to her car. She appeals. we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares or applies the law. *Trenton Trust Co. v. Western Sur. Co.,*599 S.W.2d 481, 483[1—4] (Mo.banc 1980).

Defendant asserts judgment should have been for defendant on her counterclaim. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial that she was traveling south on Main Street in O’Fallon, Missouri, approaching an intersection. Plaintiff was not speeding and had the right-of-way. Without warning, defendant’s automobile came into the street from the right as she exited a savings and loan driveway. Defendant’s car struck plaintiff’s car and caused damage. Plaintiff made a submissible case. *See Karashin v. Haggard Hauling & Rigging, Inc.,*653 S.W.2d 203, 206[9] (Mo.banc 1983); § 304.351.5, RSMo 1986. In a court-tried case, conflicts in evidence are for the trial court to resolve and the facts must be taken in accordance with the result reached by the trial court. *Trenton,*599 S.W.2d at 483[l-4]. The trial court, when sitting as the trier of fact, may believe all, part or none of the testimony of any witness. *Id.*Defendant may or may not have made a submissible case on her counterclaim, but in any event, the trial court did not have to believe defendant’s evidence. This point is denied.

Defendant asserts plaintiff failed to prove ownership of her car. Any competent evidence may be introduced to establish the fact of ownership of personal property. *State v. Guelker,*548 S.W.2d 521, 525[2] (Mo.banc 1976). Oral testimony that a witness is the owner of an automobile is competent, primary evidence of the fact of ownership. *Id.*Plaintiff testified her car was damaged as a result of the accident. *892She gave an opinion as to its fair market value. She testified her car had been repaired. She incurred a rental bill while her car was being fixed. This testimony was sufficient to show plaintiff is the owner of the car. Defendant did not object to the testimony and made no issue of ownership at trial. This point is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.