alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2012


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: April 15, 2013
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
May 4, 2004

/s/WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1926

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the capital loss

deduction with respect to the sale or exchange of an individual’s principal

residence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 21, 2001

Mr. MCINNIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the

capital loss deduction with respect to the sale or exchange of an individual’s principal residence.

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPITAL LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED WITH RE4 SPECT TO SALE OR EXCHANGE OF PRINCIPAL

5 RESIDENCE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 165 of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation

8 on losses of individuals) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at

9 the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period at the
2

•HR 1926 IH

1 end of paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by adding

2 at the end the following new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(4) losses arising from the sale or exchange of

4 the principal residence (within the meaning of sec5 tion 121) of the taxpayer.’’

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply to sales and exchanges after De8 cember 31, 2001, in taxable years ending after such date.

Æ
|   | (1) | The      Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      5, 2009                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/ Stephen      P.      Reynolds                           |
| Stephen      P. Reynolds                                                                                                                                                                            |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                          |
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1983...... 1 1 2 3 7

1984...... 3 7 10 12 32

1985...... 12 21 17 18 68

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 0 1

2004...... 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004...... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005...... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006...... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

1998: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.5 1.6 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .2 2.6 1.0 1.6 .8 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 1.0 1.0 .2 .8

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7

 Q4... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 .9 .9 .2 .6

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .5

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-218-03-SM

Felipe Espada

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

100) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

U.S. District Chief Judge

Date: August 29, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00218-JD Document 101 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 1
---

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41992
          44
          7
          11
          16
          10
          .232
          .038
          .058
          .079
          .0491993
          24
          2
          4
          7
          11
          .121
          .010
          .018
          .035
          .0541994
          10
          1
          1
          3
          6
          .048
          .003
          .003
          .013
          .0261995
          12
          0
          3
          6
          4
          .055
          -.001
          .011
          .027
          .0161996
          7
          0
          1
          2
          4
          .031
          .000
          .003
          .009
          .0171997
          16
          -1
          0
          3
          14
          .064
          -.003
          -.001
          .010
          .0541998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          n.a.
          4
          6
          8
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .010
          .015
          .021
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 30, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Russell Scrocca

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00042-JL

Alton Police Department, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

September 29, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 24) is approved as

submitted.

The pending motion to dismiss will be held in abeyance

pending the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint on or

before October 10, 2008. The “school defendants” will then

either file a renewed motion to dismiss, or inform the court that

they wish to proceed on the pending motion to dismiss as filed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: September 29, 2008

Case 1:08-cv-00042-JL Document 25 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

cc: Richard C. Mooney, Esq.

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

Dean B. Eggert, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00042-JL Document 25 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darrell J. LaRue

v.

New Hampshire State Prison,

Lakes Region Facility, Warden

No. 07-fp-096

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv- 096-SM .

SO ORDERED.

__________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 9, 2007

cc: Darrell J. LaRue, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00096-SM Document 4 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Jane Pedreira, Appellant, v Jorge Pedreira, Respondent.

[810 NYS2d 11]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John E.H. Stack-house, J.), entered September 28, 2004, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff-appellant’s wife’s motion to vacate an income execution claiming arrears of $45,421.60 on condition that she *447pay defendant-respondent husband $20,000 within 10 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By order dated December 2, 2003, child support arrears were fixed in the amount of $33,146.89 for the period “August 2002 through October 2003.” That order was subsumed in the judgment of divorce dated December 4, 2003 and entered December 10, 2003, directing plaintiffs payment of child support retroactive to August 1, 2002, and affirmed by this Court (17 AD3d 213 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 716[2005]). After entry of judgment, defendant served on plaintiff by regular and certified mail, a CPLR 5241 income execution, dated January 5, 2004, claiming arrears of $31,080.01. A motion by plaintiff to vacate this income execution was denied by order entered May 19, 2004, from which plaintiff did not appeal. By order to show cause dated June 7, 2004, defendant moved for a second income execution claiming arrears of $45,421.60. This motion was granted on default, whereupon defendant served the second income execution on plaintiffs employer. In the order on appeal, the motion court vacated plaintiffs default, vacated the second income execution on condition that plaintiff pay defendant $20,000 within 10 days, admonished the parties for their unsolicited “copious correspondence” and unclear submissions, and “strongly urged [the parties] to get their financial obligations straight, and not to rely on the court to straighten them out.” We reject plaintiffs argument that the motion court should have made a finding on the disputed issue of arrears, and, if the parties’ submissions in this regard were unclear, should have conducted a hearing. The order on appeal was merely a payment accommodation. It does not establish a new amount of arrears, which the order of May 19, 2004 fixed in the amount of $31,080.01 for the period August 1, 2002 to January 5, 2004, or preclude further application on the issue of arrears upon a proper record uncluttered by improper correspondence. We reject plaintiffs argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that she was entitled to be personally served with a “petition” seeking an income execution (CPLR 5241 [d]). We note that CPLR 5241 (b) permits a creditor to amend an income execution to reflect additional arrears. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-80-01 SM

Michelle Despres

O R D E R

Defendant's to motion to continue the trial (document no. 30) is granted. Trial

has been rescheduled for the May trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than March 13, 2010. On the filing of such waiver, the

continuance shall be effective. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further

continuances will be granted. 

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00080-SM Document 31 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
Final Pretrial Conference: May 12, 2010 at 2:30 PM 

Jury Selection: May 18, 2010 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

March 2, 2010 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

2

Case 1:08-cr-00080-SM Document 31 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13219-000]


Fourever Green Energy Co.; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 19, 2008.
    On May 2, 2008, with revisions of July 28 and September 15, 2008, 
Fourever Green Energy Co. filed an application, pursuant to section 
4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of 
the Upper Rock Creek Water Power Project, which would be located near 
the town of Oroville on Rock Creek, a tributary of the North Fork, 
Feather River in Plumas County, California.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Proposed diversion and 
intake structures; (2) a proposed 0.9-mile-long, metal/composite 
penstock; (3) a proposed powerhouse containing one generating unit 
having a total installed capacity of 5 MW; (4) a proposed 450-foot-
long, 230-kV transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The 
project would have an annual generation of 15 gigawatt-hours which 
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ron Bingaman, 25855 Sweet Road, Grass 
Valley, CA 95949; phone: (530) 268-2153. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero, 
202-502-6002.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13219) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22620 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22382]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8719-9]


Gulf of Mexico Program Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), EPA 
gives notice of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Citizens 
Advisory Committee (CAC).
    For information on access or services for individuals with 
disabilities, please contact Gloria Car, U.S. EPA, at (228) 688-2421 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3754564519505b58455e567752475619505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5635372478313a39243f371633263778313920">[email protected]</span></a>. To request accommodation of a disability, please 
contact Gloria Car, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, 
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 from 9 
a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton New Orleans 
Riverside, No. 2 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70140.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal 
Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Mail Code EPA/GMPO, Stennis 
Space Center, MS 39529-6000 at (228) 688-2421.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed agenda includes the following 
topics: Citizens Advisory Committee Overview, which includes the 
purpose, member responsibilities, and bylaws; GMP Program Update; CAC 
Participation in the Governors' Alliance; Succession Planning to vote 
on a new slate of officers and to select alternates; discussions of 
meeting frequency, date of next meeting and future meeting topics.
    The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Gloria D. Car,
Designated Federal Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-22382 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-84-01-PB

Rutilio Chavez Deleon

ORDER

Re: Document No. 18, Motion for Status of Counsel Hearing. 

Ruling: Denied. The court must presume defendant is competent to stand trial, as nothing

in the record suggests otherwise. That the defendant has reportedly chosen not to cooperate with

appointed counsel because he has different personal priorities - a strategy unlikely to benefit him

in the end - is his choice to make. Counsel is obligated to do the best he can under the circumstances

to represent the defendant. Where defendant’s conduct renders that representation less effective

than it might otherwise be, defendant will bear the consequences. The motion does not suggest any

reason to think a status conference is necessary or would be helpful. Counsel has no doubt advised

defendant of the consequences of his current course of action, and having the court repeat such

admonishments is not likely to serve any useful purpose. This is a criminal case and it must be

resolved with reasonable promptness. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: February 17, 2009

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA 

Case 1:08-cr-00084-SM Document 19 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.3





March 20, 2002











Mr. Joseph A. Pendergast


330 McCloud Place


Danville, California 94526





Re:    Interest-Free Loan Obligation





Dear Joe:





I have calculated the obligation that remains between Larscom and you as explained below:





Original loan amount:

$80,000.00Forgiveness (amortization) period:

48 monthsEmployment start date:

October 2, 2000Employment termination date:

February 22, 2002Months of employment:

17Remaining months on loan:

31Loan amount forgiven (17/48x $80,000):

$28,333.33Loan balance owed Larscom:

$51,666.67





As we agreed, before you left Larscoms employment, the loan balance owed
Larscom ($51,667.67) is to be repaid in full by no later than 6 months from your termination, which would be by September 22, 2002. Also, as we agreed, if there is any litigation about the loan, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the other party, in addition to all other allowable remedies.





Larscom has reported 15
months of loan forgiveness on your W-2s for the years 2000 and 2001 and grossed up your income accordingly. Larscom will report the remaining 2 months of loan forgiveness for completion of your employment during
2002. Larscom will report this amount in your 2002 W-2 and gross it up at a 40% rate to help provide for your taxes on this portion of your income; i.e., we will retain the 40% in its entirety for the required withholding amounts for the
2 months of forgiveness and for the gross-up amount itself.





Sincerely,





/s/    Daniel L. Scharre


Daniel L. Scharre


President and Chief Executive
Officer





| | Ag | reed:
| | -- | -----




| | /s/ | Joseph A. Pendergast
| | --- | --------------------

| | Jos | eph A. Pendergast
| | --- | -----------------