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

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 287-4 Filed 05/15/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 7569
1

William Delgado

From: CNS Dinger <dinger@courthousenews.com>

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:20 AM

To: William Delgado

Subject: CNS: Connexus - new litigation

Courthouse News Service

Not Subscribed to Northern California Regional Report: $5 Fee 

Plaintiffs: David Halliday 

Defendants: Connexus Corporation 

Court Name: El Dorado Superior Court, California 

Case Number: PC12 0255 

Judge: 

Filing Date: 5/2/2012 

NOS: 

Summary: 

Contract. Plaintiff won a jackpot from defendant's predecessor, 

Jackpot.com dba The Vendare Group. He was to receive $40,000 a year 

for the next 25 years. He is seeking to have the payment arrangement 

enforced. 

City: Cameron Park 

Local Plaintiff Lawyer: Paige Hibbert 

Local Plaintiff Firm: Heller & Hibbert 

Local Defendant Lawyer: 

Local Defendant Firm: 

If you need a copy of the complaint, please email or call Tish Kraft at eureka@courthousenews.com or (707) 

267-5147. 

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 287-4 Filed 05/15/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 7570
Exhibit 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, P. BruceCamacho, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Union Security LifeInsurance Company of New York; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 materialrespects 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 andhave: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 conclusionsabout 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 anannual 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 committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 

Date:March 10, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAVARON MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 08-CV-15236

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

JEFFREY WOODS, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

On December 22, 2008, Plaintiff Lavaron Morris filed a pro se civil rights complaint alleging

a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of Michigan currently confined

at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants have denied him access to the courts. 

The proper venue for civil actions in which jurisdiction is not based on diversity of

citizenship is the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same

state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a

substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there

is no other district in which plaintiff may bring the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public officials

“reside” in the county where they serve. See O'Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any other district

where it might have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest

of justice. 

1:08-cv-15236-TLL-SDP Doc # 3 Filed 01/14/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 58
-2-

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the United States District Court for the

Western District of Michigan is a more appropriate forum for this action. Defendants reside in

Chippewa County for purposes of the present complaint. Chippewa County is located on

Michigan’s upper peninsula, which is in the Northern Division of the Western District of Michigan.

See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b).

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court TRANSFER this case to the

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and

1404(a).

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 14, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on January 14, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cv-15236-TLL-SDP Doc # 3 Filed 01/14/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 59
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Case No. 09-12950

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA,

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING RECEIVER TO RESPOND TO WEST WIND OF BAREFOOT

BEACH, LLC’S MOTION FOR RELEASE OF THE PROPERTY IN BONITA SPRINGS,

FLORIDA FROM THE ORDER FREEZING ASSETS

On October 6, 2009, West Wind of Barefoot Beach, LLC (“West Wind”), a non-party to this

action, filed a motion asking the Court to exclude from the asset freeze order its property located at

26868 Hickory Boulevard in Bonita Springs, Florida. West Wind states that on June 25, 2009, it

entered into a residential lease with defendant John J. Bravata, pursuant to which Bravata would

have the right to purchase the property under certain conditions. West Wind contends that defendant

Bravata has failed to make payments under the lease and West Wind is now entitled to take

possession of the property. Before the Court decides West Wind’s motion, it would benefit from

the receiver’s response to the motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Receiver Earle I. Erman shall respond to West Wind’s

motion for release of the property in Bonita Springs, Florida from the order freezing assets [dkt. #

84] on or before Wednesday, October 28, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 85 Filed 10/07/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: October 7, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on October 7, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 85 Filed 10/07/2009 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROSE MARY MILES-RICHARDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-11275

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

 /

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this case seeking Social Security disability-insurance benefits. This matter

currently comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

18], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report

and Recommendation and the time period to do so has elapsed. 

After a thorough review of the transcript, the court file, and the Report and Recommendation,

the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions

of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [dkt 1] is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 3, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on May 3, 2010.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 5 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 6 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 8 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 9 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 10 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 11 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 12 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 13 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 14 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 15 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 16 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 17 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 18 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 19 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 20 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 21 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 22 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 23 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 24 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 25 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 26 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 27 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 28 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 29 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 30 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 31 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 32 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 33 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 34 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 35 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 36 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 37 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 38 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 39 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 40 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 41 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 42 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 43 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 44 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 45 of 46
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC Document 154 Filed 06/30/10 Page 46 of 46
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11380

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

RDI of MICHIGAN, LLC,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR STAY

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on November 5, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This lawsuit arises from a distributorship agreement between Plaintiff Riviera

Distributors, Inc. (“Riviera”) and Defendant RDI of Michigan, LLC (“RDI”). Riviera

filed its complaint against RDI on April 13, 2009. RDI filed a counter-complaint against

Riviera on May 5, 2009. Presently before the Court is RDI’s motion, filed September 2,

2010, seeking a stay of this case pending resolution of RDI’s motion to set aside a

stipulated order of dismissal in a related case pending before the Honorable Marianne O.

Battani, Riviera Distributors, Inc. v. Universal Video, Inc. et al., No. 06-15629

(“Riveriera/UVI lawsuit”). After successfully moving for more time to respond, Riviera

filed a response to RDI’s motion for a stay on September 30, 2010. RDI filed a reply
2

brief on October 21, 2010.

On October 28, 2010, Judge Battani held a hearing with respect to RDI’s motion to

set aside the dismissal in the Riviera/UVI lawsuit. On the same date, Judge Battani

issued an order denying the motion. RDI’s motion to stay in this action, therefore, is

moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, RDI of Michigan, LLC’s

“Motion for Stay Until Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Stipulated Order of Dismissal with

Prejudice Presently Pending in the Matter of Riviera Distributors, Inc. v. Universal Video,

Inc., et al., Case No. 06-15629 before Honorable Marianne O. Battani is DENIED AS

MOOT.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 419

AN ACT

For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 419

AN ACT

For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 419 EH

1 SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

2 (a) FINDING.—The Congress finds that Benchmark

3 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily per4 formed emergency work after the Northridge earthquake,

5 but has not been reimbursed as a result of a technicality

6 under California State law.

7 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to fairly

8 compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for

9 which, except for the technicality under California State

10 law, it would otherwise have been paid under the provi11 sions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer12 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121).

13 SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the

15 date of enactment of this Act, the director of the Federal

16 Emergency Management Agency shall pay to Benchmark

17 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an amount equal

18 to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.,

19 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the

20 State of California to compensate Benchmark Rail Group,

21 Inc., for the emergency work and services performed at

22 the request of the Southern California Regional Rail Au23 thority, to the extent that such work and services are oth24 erwise eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T.

25 Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (42
3

•HR 419 EH

1 U.S.C. 5121). The payment shall be made from funds ap2 propriated to implement such Act.

3 (b) DEOBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—The Federal Emer4 gency Management Agency shall deobligate an equal

5 amount to that obligated previously for payment to the

6 State of California to cover the costs of work performed

7 for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by

8 Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., after the Northridge earth9 quake which would have been eligible for reimbursement

10 under such Act.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]


Missouri; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective July 18, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared 
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and 
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to 
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-17692 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

 

I, Terrence S. Cassidy, the Principal ExecutiveOfficer and the Principal Financial Officer of NWH, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)          theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  December 28, 2005 |   | By:    | /s/ Terrence  S. Cassidy         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |   |                             |
|                          |   |   | Terrence S.  Cassidy             |
|                          |   |   | Principal  Executive Officer and |
|                          |   |   | Principal  Financial Officer     |

 

----
*       *        *       *       *  EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Standard Commerce, Inc. (the Company) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007 (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 78o(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:  November 19, 2007 By: /s/ Jianye Wang  Jianye Wang, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Margaret SEIDL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Lawrence SEIDL, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68644.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1996.

Aaron S. Dubin, Vines, Frankel, Rubin, Bond & Dubin, P.C., Clayton, for appellant.

Timothy A. Graham, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for attorney’s fees incurred in her appeal from her action in equity to divide undistributed marital property. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Samsonite Corporation(the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Marcello Bottoli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company. |

 
| /s/ Marcello Bottoli |                                   |   |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:                | Marcello Bottoli                       |   |
| Title:               | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                | May 31, 2006                      |   |
|                 |                                   |   |
|                      |                                        |        |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----