alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth Galpin, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. s. 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|Date:  March 24, 2003 | /s/  Kenneth Galpin
Kenneth Galpin
CEO and President
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 15.2
 
 CONSENT OF AUTHOR
 
 To:
Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp.

British Columbia Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission (Securities Division)

Manitoba Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

New Brunswick Securities Commission

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

Newfoundland and Labrador, Securities Division

Registrar of Securities, Prince Edward Island

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
 
 AND TO:
Toronto Stock Exchange

NYSE Amex Equities
 RE:
Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (“Crosshair”) -

Consent under National Instrument 43-101




Reference is made to the technical report entitled “Form 43-101 Technical Report on the Central Mineral Belt (CMB) Uranium Project, Labrador, Canada” dated July 31, 2008 (the “Technical Report which the undersigned has prepared for Crosshair.


I have reviewed and approved the summaries of and extracts from the Technical Report prepared to be filed with the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) of Crosshair (fiscal year ended April 30, 2010) and confirm that such summaries and extracts fairly and accurately represent the information in the Technical Report.  I hereby consent to the written disclosure of my name, and reference to and incorporation by reference of, the Technical Report in the public filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) of Crosshair with the regulatory authorities referred to above.
 
 I certify that I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 20-F (Annual Information Form) being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Technical Report or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by me in connection with the Technical Report.
 
 Dated:  the 29th day of July, 2010.




“Gary H. Giroux”Gary H. Giroux, P.Eng. MASc.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Microbial Research","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"squtCZUEbr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/for-researchers\/a-researchers-guide-to-microbial-research\/\">A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Microbial Research<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/for-researchers\/a-researchers-guide-to-microbial-research\/embed\/#?secret=squtCZUEbr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Microbial Research” — NASA\" data-secret=\"squtCZUEbr\" 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\/2021\/10\/microbial_research-front-cover.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":927}
8397.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Co. *v.*Meriwether County.

Decided September 27, 1918.

Illegality of execution; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. April 10, 1916.'

*Battle & Hollis,*for plaintiff in error.'

*N. F. Culpepper,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

Under the answer to the questions of law submitted to the Supreme Court in this case (148 *Ga.*438, 96 S. E. 884), judgment of ’ the superior court, overruling the affidavit of illegality, must be

*Reversed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Luhe, J., concur.*
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 14 1 . RECO COUSI NS v . UNI VERSI TY OF W EST GEORGI A, et a l.

Reco Co u s i n s , an in m at e, at t em p t ed t o fi le a l aws u it ag ai n s t t he Un i vers i ty o f

W es t Geo rg i a, M eg an Lu th er, Al i ci a Den i se Bak er, an d T h eres a J ab l eck i -Kri el
, b ut

o n Decem

b er 3 1
, 2 0 2 0
, th e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er d en y i n g t h e fi l i ng o f t h e

l aws u i t an d Co u s i n s ’ s req u es t t o p ro cee d i n fo rm a p au p eri s. Co u si n s t h en fi l ed a

n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n M arch 3 , 2 0 2 1 . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r t wo reas o n s

. Fi rs t , becau s e Co u s i n s i s i ncarcerat ed
, h is ap p eal is co n t ro l l ed b y t he Pri so n

Li t i gat i o n Refo rm Act o f 1 9 9 6
, OCGA § 4 2 -1 2 -1 et s eq

. U n d er OCGA § 4 2 -1 2 -8
, an

ap p eal of a c i v i l a ct i o n fi l ed b y a p ri s o n er “ s h al l b e as p ro v i d ed i n Co d e Sect i o n

5 -6 -3 5 .” An d u n d er O CGA § 5 -6 -3 5
, t h e p art y wi s h in g to ap p ea l m u s t fi l e an

ap p li cat io n fo r di s cret io n ary rev i ew i n t h e ap pro p ri at e ap p el l at e co u rt

. Becau s e a

p ri s o n er has n o ri gh t o f d i rect ap p eal i n ci v i l cas es , we l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n t o co n s i d er

t h i s d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. See Jo n es v. To wn s en d
, 26 7 Ga. 4 8 9,

4 9 0 (4 80 SE2 d 2 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ).

Seco n d , Co u s i n s ’ s n o ti ce o f ap p eal i s al s o u n t i m el y . A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m u s t

b e fi l ed w i th i n 3 0 day s aft er t h e en t ry o f t h e o rd er o r ju d g m en t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA
§ 5-6 -3 8 (a). T h e p ro p er a n d t i m e l y fi l i n g o f a n ot i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e

req u i rem en t t o c o n fer ju ri s d ict i o n u p o n t h i s Co u rt

. Ro wl a n d v. S t a te , 26 4 Ga. 8 7 2, April 14, 20218 7 2 (1 ) (4 52 SE2 d 7 5 6) (1 99 5 ). H e r e, Co us i n s fi l ed t h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal 6 2 day s

aft er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. Co n s eq u en t ly , t h i s ap p eal i s u n ti m el y

. Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s , t h is ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/14/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Gale Clapper

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02635

Honorable Manish S. Shah

United Airlines, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, February 16, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Dispositive motions are due

3/25/22, responses due by 4/29/22, and replies due by 5/20/22. The court will rule by

cm/ecf. (mss)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02635 Document #: 73 Filed: 02/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:688
Case 2:15-mj-01907-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01907-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01907-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10 (O)

        SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS' RETAINER FEE EQUITY COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

         The Corporation does not have a contract with its independent outside
directors concerning the payment of retainer compensation in shares of
Corporation common stock, rather the Corporation's obligation is evidenced and
confirmed by a duly adopted resolution of the Corporation's Board of Directors.
Thus, the following written description of the Corporation's obligation is
provided, to comply with the requirements of Section 601 paragraph (b) (10)
(iii) (B) of Regulation S-K. The Corporation has agreed to pay and its outside
directors have agreed to accept payment of their annual $10,000 retainer
compensation in the form of Corporation common stock payable in April of each
year at the market value of the stock on the day prior to day of payment.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6086
THOMAS L. GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CHARLES FRANCE, Plaintiff, versus RON ANGELONE; S. MURPHY; LONNIE M. SAUNDERS; JACK LEE; CHERYL MILLER; P. A. LAWHORN; LARRY HUFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. T urk, District Judge. (CA-95-1368-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas L. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Goodman v. Angelone , No. CA-95-1368-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IIA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 968

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 9, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

AN ACT

To amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act

to permit a waiver of the prohibition of offering nurse

aide training and competency evaluation programs in

certain nursing facilities.

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

HR 968 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING WAIVER OF PROHIBITION OF OF2 FERING NURSE AIDE TRAINING AND COM3 PETENCY EVALUATION PROGRAMS IN CER4 TAIN FACILITIES.

5 Section 1819(f)(2) of the Social Security Act (42

6 U.S.C. 1395i–3(f)(2)) and section 1919(f)(2) of such Act

7 (42 U.S.C. 1396r(f)(2)) are each amended—

8 (1) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by inserting ‘‘sub9 ject to subparagraph (C),’’ after ‘‘(iii)’’; and

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraph:

12 ‘‘(C) WAIVER AUTHORIZED.—Clause

13 (iii)(I) of subparagraph (B) shall not apply to

14 a program offered in (but not by) a nursing fa15 cility (or skilled nursing facility for purposes of

16 title XVIII) in a State if the State—

17 ‘‘(i) determines that there is no other

18 such program offered within a reasonable

19 distance of the facility,

20 ‘‘(ii) assures, through an oversight ef21 fort, that an adequate environment exists

22 for operating the program in the facility,

23 and
3

HR 968 RFS

1 ‘‘(iii) provides notice of such deter2 mination and assurances to the State long3 term care ombudsman.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Raymond Crump, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-00312-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 24), 

IT IS ORDERED this action is dismissed with prejudice, the parties to bear their 

own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 Dated this 13th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

 

Case 2:16-cv-00312-ROS Document 25 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls 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 period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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 an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  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 and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Carlos E. AgueroCarlos E. AgüeroChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### W. F. McNamara, &c., *v.*James W. Sibley, &c.

Discovery — Undisclosed Payments — Continuance—Pleading.

Where an answer to a petition to. foreclose a mortgage shows undisclosed payments, and a charge of usury, the defendant would he entitled to time for preparation, and an order of discovery.

APPEAL EROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

September 15, 1870.

*Eallam, for appellants.*

Benton, *for appellees.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Eobertson :

The statute requires no demand or affidavit in this case, especially as there is no administrator.

But, while the pleadings and exhibits manifest a right to foreclose the mortgage, *in due*time, for whatever may be due upon it, the. allegations, in the answer, of undisclosed payments and of usuary to a large amount not precisely ascertained by the appellants, but known by the appellees, though vague and indefinite, were nevertheless issuable, and, rents averred by the appellees, entitled the appellants to some time for preparation either by requiring a discovery or by an inquisition before the master.

The forced submission for final decree only a few days after the filing of the answer was therefore premature and unauthorized, and the judgment for foreclosure and sale erroneous, especially as payments and reclaimable usury to some extent as alleged are not controverted by the appellees.

Wherefore, the 'judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings by a discovery the appellants have not yet prayed for; and for otherwise litigating the question of alleged payments and usury.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 

**- 1244** 

REGINA QUARTEY

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

, Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : January 28, 2011 Decided: February 9 , 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Taiwo A. Agbaje, AGBAJE LAW FIRM, PC, Gwynn Oak, Maryland, for
Petitio ner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Linda Y. Cheng, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Regina Quartey, a native and citizen of Ghana,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s

denial of her motion to reopen. We have reviewe d the

administrative record and the parties’ briefs and conclude that

we lack jurisdiction to review Quartey’s challenges to the

immigration judge’s determination that Quartey was ineligible

for adjustment of status due to her fraudulent marriage, see

8 U. S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) , and that the denial of Quartey’s

motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion, s ee 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2 3(b)(3) . We therefo re deny the petition for review

. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process

.

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 3, 2020 t0224

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2020

159337

DEBRA A. PARADISO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 159337

COA: 340757 

Oakland CC: 2016-155600-NO

CITY OF ROYAL OAK,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Wigfall v 

City of Detroit, 504 Mich 330 (2019).
Order entered May 27 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 0144 0 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 01441 - CR KAFIR DESHAWN KABBAR A, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F14 - 60312 - V, F14 - 60313 - V



### O RDER In cause no. 05

- 15

- 01440

- CR, appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In cause no. 05

- 15

- 01441

- CR, appellant was convicted of evading arrest or detention in a motor vehicle. Although appellant filed one brief with both cause numbers, the brief raises an issue regarding only the evading arrest or detention conviction. Appellate counsel is retained and may not file an Anders brief, and counsel has not moved t o withdraw on cause no. 05

- 15

- 01440

- CR because the appeal is frivolous. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1 , 487 U.S. 429 (1988). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either an amended brief tha t raises issues on the merits as to both cases, or a motion towithdraw as appellate counsel in cause no. 05

- 15

- 01440

- CR that explains why counsel cannot

file a brief regarding the aggravated assault conviction. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this o rder to Niles Illich and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Xponential, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dwayne A. Moyers, the ChiefExecutive 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, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 15, 2004 | /s/ Dwayne A. Moyers    |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Dwayne A. Moyers        |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----