alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Logan *v.*Siggerson.

Trespass de bonis asportatis. Plea, that the defendant, as a justice of the peace, had entered a fine against the plaintiff for an assault committed by him in the defendant’s presence. Held, on demurrer, that the plea was bad, because it did not show but that the fine was imposed in the offender’s absence.

Wednesday, *May*27.

APPEAL from the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Scott, J.

The appellee, who was plaintiff in the Circuit Court, declared against the appellant in an action of trespass for tortiously taking three saws and converting them to his own use. The defendant pleaded the general issue, which was afterwards withdrawn. He also pleaded specially, that at the time when, &c. he was an acting justice of the peace, and had full power and authority to inquire into, and in a summary way to punish by fine not exceeding three dollars, all trivial breaches of the peace, and to give judgment and award execution; that at the time when, &c., by consideration and judgment of the said defendant as justice of the peace, it was adjudged that the state of *Indiana*should recover against the said plaintiff the sum of two dollars as a fine, aad fifty cents as costs, for an assault which he the said plaintiff had, in the presence and view of the said defendant, committed on the body of one *William Logan,*&c.; that he issued, execution, and that the goods in the declaration mentioned were levied on and sold, &c. To this plea the plaintiff replied, that *William Logan*who, it is alleged, was assaulted, and *William Logan*the defendant, who as *267a justice of the peace imposed the fine, are one and the same person, and that the said assault was not committed upon the said *William,*Logan, when he was in the execution of his office as a justice of the peace. General demurrer to this replication, and joinder. Demurrer overruled. Writ of inquiry and final judgment for the plaintiff.

*Fletcher,*for the appellant.

*Wick,*for the appellee.

The plea is defective. It was not enough that the defendant should show, in his plea, that he had authority to impose afine for an assault. He should have shown, also, that he had caused the offender to be brought before him, ánd had thus obtained jurisdiction of the person, as well as of the crime. For aught that appears in the plea, the fine might have been imposed in the absence of the offender, and without any notice to him of the amount of the fine, or even of its existence, till he was visited by the officer with the execution in his hand. The replication is defective also; but the plea being bad, the defendant could not take advantage of it. The demurrer carries us back to the first error. Setting aside the parts which are defective, nothing remains but the declaration; and, as the plaintiff has the judgment below, it must stand.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 1 *per cent,*damages and costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,957,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,603,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                       2,001,128 <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,561,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,183,185
<BONDS>                                     25,641,217 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,198
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,706,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,561,727
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,360,494
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,706,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               170,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 <F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                484,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                   179,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            305,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   305,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
<FN>
<F1> THE COMPANY DOES NOT PREPARE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET
<F2> INCLUDES DEFERRED INCOME TAX ASSET OF $1,032,000
<F3> INCLUDES NONRECOURSE DISCOUNTED LEASE RENTALS OF $17,864,216
<F4> AMOUNT, $1,353,925 IS INCLUDED IN TAG 29, "TOTAL COSTS"
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Donnie E. Ferris, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03537-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8659 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kristy Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00435-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/29/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 964 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 964 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Pharmacotherapeutics","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CSM7LBZgKQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/pharmacotherapeutics\/\">Pharmacotherapeutics<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/pharmacotherapeutics\/embed\/#?secret=CSM7LBZgKQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Pharmacotherapeutics” — NASA\" data-secret=\"CSM7LBZgKQ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/hhp-pharmacotherapeutics-jsc2006e50490.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":398}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"NIAC 2022 Phase I and Phase II Selections","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BOf4bLiakC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/niac-2022-phase-i-and-phase-ii-selections\/\">NIAC 2022 Phase I and Phase II Selections<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/niac-2022-phase-i-and-phase-ii-selections\/embed\/#?secret=BOf4bLiakC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NIAC 2022 Phase I and Phase II Selections” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BOf4bLiakC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/2022_niac_ph_i_ii_selections_web_graphic_banner_final_v2.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":185}
Guadalupe County

Groundwater Conservation



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 5, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00433

- CV

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc.,

Appell ants

v.

GUADALUPE COUNTY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 0863

- CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED.

The appellee ’ s brief is due on November 10

, 20 15. No further extensions, abse nt extraordinary

circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"HERA Mission XIX Departs for Mars Moon Phobos","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"F32NUiYa19\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/hera-mission-xix-departs-for-mars-moon-phobos\/\">HERA Mission XIX Departs for Mars Moon Phobos<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/hera-mission-xix-departs-for-mars-moon-phobos\/embed\/#?secret=F32NUiYa19\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“HERA Mission XIX Departs for Mars Moon Phobos” — NASA\" data-secret=\"F32NUiYa19\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/jsc2019e030702_copy.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### MEDICAL INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE OF NEW JERSEY, ETC. v. HEALTH CARE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ETC.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### LANE WALSH v. ULTIMATE CORPORATION.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 231 *N.J.Super.*383)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clarence Beaudoin,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04543-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 20, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9425 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2619

To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and 

United States Courthouse located at 333 Constitution Ave. Northwest 

in Washington, District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant 

Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and United States 

Courthouse.’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2004

Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL

To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

Constitution Ave. Northwest in Washington, District of 

Columbia, as the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant Annex to 

the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse.’’. 

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

•S 2619 IS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JUDGE WILLIAM B. BRYANT 

2 ANNEX TO THE E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN FED3 ERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE. 

5 The annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

6 Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

7 Constitution Ave. Northwest in Washington, District of 

8 Columbia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Judge 

9 William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 

10 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

11 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

12 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

13 paper, or other record of the United States to the annex 

14 to the Federal building and United States Courthouse re15 ferred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

16 to the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett 

17 Prettyman Federal Building and United States Court18 house’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

JaHazel Grayson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-04012-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8699 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Neil A.M. Crook, Chief Financial Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Central EuropeanDistribution Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit 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 theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer 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 and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision 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 periodin which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed inthis quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003