alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Susan McLaughlin

v. Civil No. 07-cv-337-PB

NH State Prison for Women, Warden

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $26.60 is due no later than

November 20, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the NH

State Prison for Women when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 19, 2007

cc: Susan McLaughlin, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 NH State Prison for Women, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:07-cv-00337-PB Document 4 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humberto Magana ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10150.

D.C. No. CR-00-00058-HDM/RAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Humberto Magana Arias appeals his jury trial conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846); methamphetamine distribution (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(i)) and unlawful use of a communication facility (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)). Arias also pled guilty to unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

On appeal, Arias challenges only the district court’s denial of his post-trial motion to dismiss, contending that he was denied his right to a speedy trial as required by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Arias has waived the right to appeal this issue because a defendant’s failure to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of the right to dismissal. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). The Act provides for no exception to the waiver of the right to dismissal for failure to make a timely motion. *United States v. Brickey,*289 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2006...... 1.37 .11 .11 .92 .11 .11 .57 .36 .30 .13 2007...... 1.34 .09 .11 .90 .12 .13 .51 .38 .32 .14 2008...... 1.32 .07 .10 .91 .08 .15 .46 .38 .32 .16 2006: Q1... 1.53 .12 .13 1.06 .11 .11 .76 .31 .30 .16  Q2... 1.56 .10 .12 1.08 .13 .13 .62 .45 .34 .15  Q3... 1.23 .11 .08 .82 .10 .12 .48 .37 .27 .11  Q4... 1.13 .12 .10 .73 .08 .09 .42 .31 .29 .12 2007: Q1... 1.19 .08 .10 .79 .11 .12 .42 .32 .29 .17  Q2... 1.56 .08 .12 1.09 .13 .14 .63 .45 .35 .13  Q3... 1.25 .08 .08 .84 .12 .13 .49 .36 .28 .11  Q4... 1.37 .11 .15 .86 .10 .14 .50 .38 .34 .15 2008: Q1... 1.25 .09 .10 .83 .09 .13 .41 .36 .30 .18  Q2... 1.45 .07 .11 1.01 .10 .16 .54 .38 .36 .17  Q3... 1.22 .03 .08 .87 .09 .14 .45 .37 .28 .13  Q4... 1.38 .10 .12 .93 .06 .17 .46 .40 .36 .17 2009: Q1... 1.31 .09 .09 .89 .10 .15 .43 .36 .33 .19  Q2... 1.31 .08 .09 .91 .09 .13 .49 .37 .32 .13  Q3... 1.27 .07 .06 .92 .07 .14 .52 .36 .29 .11  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      945
<ALLOWANCES>                                       308
<INVENTORY>                                        280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,026
<PP&E>                                             996
<DEPRECIATION>                                     490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,301
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,770
<COMMON>                                         7,999
<OTHER-SE>                                       (112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,033
<SALES>                                          3,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,991
<CGS>                                            3,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (219)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,583)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,583)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2004: Q3... 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 5.9 5.1  Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Ortiz, Appellant.

[809 NYS2d 153]

*812Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered January 30, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Upon the appeal from the judgment, the duration of an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing will be reviewed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the order of protection as directed that it remain in effect until January 30, 2011, is vacated, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the order of protection, taking into account the defendant’s jail-time credit; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People committed a *Brady*violation *(see Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]) by failing to timely turn over a witness’s statement is without merit. The statement was “merely cumulative” of other evidence adduced by the defendant at trial *(see People v Tran,*308 AD2d 497 [2003]).

The defendant’s contention that the duration of the final order of protection exceeds the maximum period permissible under CPL 530.13 (4) is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on this ground *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nieves, 2*NY3d 310 [2004]). Nevertheless, we reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Johnson,*16 AD3d 521 [2005]). As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court’s determination as to the duration of the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing pursuant to CPL 530.13 (4) should have taken into account the defendant’s jail-time credit *(see People v Pettiford,*1 AD3d 466 [2003]; *People v Serrano,*309 AD2d 822, 823 [2003]; *see also People v Nieves, supra).*Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new *813determination of the duration of the order of protection, taking into account the defendant’s jail-time credit.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2087

To provide that benefits under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,

may be afforded for covered services provided by a licensed or certified

chiropractor, without supervision or referral by another health practitioner.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 6, 2001

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

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To provide that benefits under chapter 89 of title 5, United

States Code, may be afforded for covered services provided by a licensed or certified chiropractor, without supervision or referral by another health practitioner.

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 ‘‘Federal Employees’

5 Access to Chiropractic Health Care Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8902(k) of title 5, United

8 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘chiropractor,’’ after
2

•HR 2087 IH

1 ‘‘nursing school administered clinic,’’ each place it ap2 pears.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contracts entered

5 into or renewed on or after the date of enactment of this

6 Act.

Æ
#### Polly N. Passonneau, P.C., Respondent, v Robert Cassens et al., Appellants.

[805 NYS2d 833]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for a declaration that she is the rightful owner of the subject vehicle, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that Polly N. Passonneau, as attorney for Alexandra Cassens, is the rightful owner of the subject vehicle, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The March 29, 2004 letter agreement, read as a whole, plainly manifests the parties’ intention that ownership of the subject vehicle would be transferred to Ms. Passonneau as attorney for Alexandra Cassens. The letter agreement does not state that defendants were agreeing to reassign a lien on the vehicle, but rather, explicitly states that they agreed to reassign the vehicle to plaintiff. We modify only to the extent of declaring, in accordance with the letter agreement, that the transfer is to Polly N. Passonneau as attorney for Alexandra Cassens. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**September 2008**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: September 30, 2008**
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



To Inland Resources Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our reserve
report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto, to any reference
made to us in Form 10-K as a result of such incorporation and to the
incorporation by reference thereof into Inland's registration statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 33-41662), Form S-8 (File No. 333-27449), Form S-8 (File No.
33-84640) and Form S-3 (File No. 33-84766).


                                     /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



Denver, Colorado
March 21, 2000
#### Ora Rafaelova et al., Appellants-Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and Domingo Corsino et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[810 NYS2d 123]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvatore R. Martoche, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the pleadings to assert an exemption from the CPLR article 16 limitation on liability for damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied since plaintiff did not plead an exception to CPLR 1601, which operates to limit defendants’ liability to their respective equitable shares of fault, and never sought leave to amend her pleadings to include such exception until after the verdict was rendered and the jury was discharged *(see Cole v Mandell Food Stores,*93 NY2d 34, 39-40 [1999]; *Morales v County of Nassau,*94 NY2d 218, 224 [1999]). The proposed amendment would not have availed plaintiffs in any event, since there is no support for their contention that Fire Department ambulances are among the motor vehicles coming within the exception set forth in CPLR 1602 (6) *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 311 [2]).

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
#### DAVIS-WOOD LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., v. SECURITY INSURANCE CO. OF NEW HAVEN, CONN., et al.

No. 1317.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 8, 1934.

Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harvey E. Ellis and Frank B. Ellis, both of Covington, for appellee.

MOUTON, Judge.

In this case, for the reasons stated in the case of Davis-Wood Lumber Co. v. Insurance Company of North America, 154 So. 760, the judgment appealed from herein, with damages, legal interest, and attorney’s fees allowed, is avoided, annulled, and reversed; and that the demand of the plaintiff be and is hereby rejected, at its cost in both courts.

ELLIOTT, J.,

dissenting. See Davis-Wood Lumber Co. v. Insurance Company of North America, 154 So. 760, this day decided.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-161-01/02-SM

Alan Houghton and

Alnardo Suarez,

 Defendants

O R D E R

Defendant Houghton’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document

no. 19). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of June 2009. Defendant

Houghton shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than May 21, 2009. 

On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective. 

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

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM Document 20 Filed 05/08/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for June 4, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on June 16 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

May 8, 2009

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Michael Zaino, SAUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM Document 20 Filed 05/08/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Alpha GmbH & Co. Schiffsbesitz KG, Respondent, v BIP Industries Co., Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 73]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 21, 2004, which, in an action on a guaranty, granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s failure to plead fraudulent concealment in its answer does not bar that defense, where defendant did not learn *345of the defense until some two years after it filed its answer. It could not in any event have moved for leave to amend since for most of the two-year period the action was stayed pending an arbitration between its subsidiary and plaintiff. When it did raise the defense in its cross motion for summary judgment shortly after the arbitration stay was lifted, plaintiff did not claim surprise or prejudice, and indeed opposed the defense on the merits *(see Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn.,*54 NY2d 883 [1981]). Nor is the defense barred by the decision in the arbitration, which had nothing to do with whether plaintiff fraudulently induced defendant to guarantee its subsidiary’s obligations. However, assuming, without deciding, that the defense is not barred by the terms of the guaranty, we find it fails on the merits. The parties, businesses on opposite sides of a transaction, and each represented by counsel, were not in a confidential or fiduciary relationship, and the allegedly concealed information, plaintiffs insolvency and dissolution, were matters of public record that defendant could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence *(see National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Red Apple Group,*273 AD2d 140, 141 [2000]; *Aaron Ferer & Sons Ltd. v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.,*731 F2d 112, 123 [2d Cir 1984]; *WestRM-West Risk Mkts., Ltd. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,*314 F Supp 2d 229, 239 [SD NY 2004]). In dismissing the defense, the motion court did not improperly decide an issue of fact against defendant, but merely applied law concerning fraudulent concealment and public records. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
**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 Annual Report of The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, David R. Jaffe,
      President and 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, 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 (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.





The
      foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
      provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
      to be used for any other purpose.







/s/
      DAVID R. JAFFE


David
      R.
      Jaffe


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


October
      12, 2006