alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as Chief Financial Officer, 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; and

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


Date: March 24, 2006                            /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation, Inc. and will be retained by The
InterGroup Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          72,575
<SECURITIES>                                    62,779
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,649
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,934
<PP&E>                                           4,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 443,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          397,558
<BONDS>                                         12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,750
<COMMON>                                        19,730
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,853<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   443,891
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,633
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   510
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                       635
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,107
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,107
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES UNREALIZED LOSS ON SECURITIES AFS OF 168
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JENNIFER FAY JONES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0622-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it is

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89,

111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this

decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a

prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412,

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and

terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

DONE this the 22nd day of April, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00622-C Document 21 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,123
<INVENTORY>                                     10,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,060
<PP&E>                                          37,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,185
<BONDS>                                         94,034
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         9,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,467
<SALES>                                        111,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,394
<CGS>                                           86,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    375
<INCOME-TAX>                                       803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (6,522)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,950)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.73)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Charles G. Cooper, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Bay View Capital Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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
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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. CooperPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 12-00068-CG

)

JESSE ANDRE HEARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

IN RE: The Ancillary Proceeding

 Petition of Beverly Heard,

 who may also be known as

 Beverly Williams,

)

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the ancillary proceeding petition of Beverly 

Williams (Doc. 427), and the Government’s response (Doc. 433) moving to dismiss 

the petition, or, alternatively, requesting that the petition be deemed moot, in light 

of the Government’s filing of a separate civil forfeiture action against the same 

property in which petitioner’s petition claims an interest.

The records of this court show that on March 12, 2013, the Government did 

file a separate civil forfeiture action against the real property to which Beverly 

Williams’ petition relates, namely, United States v. One parcel of real property and 

all improvements thereon located at 801 East Franklin Avenue, Foley, Alabama, 

Civil Action 13-00117-CG-C. Therefore, all issues related to the forfeiture of the 

property, including petitioner Williams’ interest in it, may and should be litigated 

within the civil forfeiture action. As a result, based on the records of the court, 

along with the facts and authorities submitted by the Government, the 

Case 1:12-cr-00068-CG-B Document 439 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Government’s motion is GRANTED. The petition of Beverly Williams is hereby 

DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 32.2 (c)(1)(A) for the above-referenced lawful reason.

THEREFORE, all further proceedings related to the forfeiture of 801 East 

Franklin Avenue, Foley, Alabama, are to be conducted in the civil forfeiture action.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00068-CG-B Document 439 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 2
SUBROUTINE UNIPPF(P,PPF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PERCENT POINT
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE UNIFORM (RECTANGULAR) 
C              DISTRIBUTION ON THE UNIT INTERVAL (0,1).
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION HAS MEAN = 0.5
C              AND STANDARD DEVIATION = SQRT(1/12) = 0.28867513.
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION HAS THE PROBABILITY
C              DENSITY FUNCTION F(X) = 1.
C              NOTE THAT THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION OF A DISTRIBUTION 
C              IS IDENTICALLY THE SAME AS THE INVERSE CUMULATIVE
C              DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION.
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--P      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                (BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0)
C                                AT WHICH THE PERCENT POINT 
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--PPF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION PERCENT
C                                POINT FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION PERCENT POINT
C             FUNCTION VALUE PPF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--P SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0, INCLUSIVELY.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--FILLIBEN, SIMPLE AND ROBUST LINEAR ESTIMATION
C                 OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF A SYMMETRIC
C                 DISTRIBUTION (UNPUBLISHED PH.D. DISSERTATION,
C                 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY), 1969, PAGES 21-44, 229-231.
C               --FILLIBEN, 'THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION',
C                 (UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT), 1970, PAGES 28-31.
C               --JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--2, 1970, PAGES 57-74.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(P.LT.0.0.OR.P.GT.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,1)
      WRITE(IPR,46)P
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    1 FORMAT(1H ,115H***** FATAL ERROR--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 UNIPPF SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE (0,1) INTERVAL *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      PPF=P
C
      RETURN
      END
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1435 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the sale of 

internal combustion engines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2023 

Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. LATTA, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. 

OBERNOLTE, Mr. EMMER, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

BALDERSON, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. ROY, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. FINSTAD, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. MAST, 

Mr. PENCE, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. ISSA, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. 

GUEST, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CARTER

of Georgia, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. BOST, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. 

FEENSTRA, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. OWENS, Mr. 

WALBERG, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

GRIFFITH, Mr. MCCORMICK, Mrs. BICE, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. HERN, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. TURNER, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. MANN, Mr. 

SMUCKER, Mr. PERRY, and Mr. CAREY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination 

of the sale of internal combustion engines. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1435 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Choice in 

3 Vehicle Purchases Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STATE STANDARDS. 

5 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 209(b) of the Clean Air 

6 Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

9 ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

10 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

11 ‘‘part.’’ and inserting ‘‘part, or’’; and 

12 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(D) such State standards directly or indirectly 

14 limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with in15 ternal combustion engines, as such term is defined 

16 in section 63.9375 of title 40, Code of Federal Reg17 ulations, as in effect January 1, 2023.’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(4) The Administrator may not determine that any 

20 State standards amended after the date of enactment of 

21 this paragraph are within the scope of a waiver granted 

22 under paragraph (1) before the date of enactment of this 

23 paragraph.’’. 

24 (b) EFFECT ON CERTAIN EXISTING WAIVERS.—The 

25 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

26 shall revoke a waiver granted under section 209(b) of the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1435 IH

1 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) during the period that 

2 begins on January 1, 2022, and ends on the date of enact3 ment of this Act if the Administrator finds that such waiv4 er does not comply with subparagraph (D) of section 

5 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1)), 

6 as added by this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### THE STATE ex rel. LABER v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

Officer: holdover: removal without cause. Under the police law for St. Louis, a patrolman who has served the term for which he was appointed, and thereafter holds over, can be removed at any time. He is not entitled to another term of four years on the theory thht by being permitted to continue in office after his term expired he was, by implication, reappointed for another term.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — Ho». *S. P. Spencer,*Judge.

Reversed.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paxson*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus for the salary of the relator and five others, as patrolmen. '

They had all fully served their appointed terms, and were simply holdovers when they were removed. The circuit court allowed the claim of Laber from October 17, 1895, to November 1, 1895, at the rate of $83.33 1-3 a month; of P. D. Westervelt from September 15, 1894, to September 23, 1896, and of James W. Young from October 17,1895, to November 1,1897, and denied the claims of the other three, and defendants appealed.

Laber was appointed a regular patrolman on November 1, 1887, for a term of four years and served until October 17, 1895.

*398"Westervelt was appointed a regular patrolman June 14, 1875, resigned June 14, 1881; was appointed a special June 15, 1884, and was dropped September 15, 1894.

Young was appointed a .patrolman November 1, 1889, for a term of four years, which, he fully served, and held over until October 17, 1895, when he was dropped.

They all claim reappointments by implication. The judgment in their favor was erroneous. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, ante, p. 360.] It is, therefore, reversed, and the writ quashed.

All ’concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SANDRA CALDWELL, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0819-WS-C 

PROVIDENCE FAMILY PHYSICIAN :

(TILLMAN’S CORNER) SETON MEDICAL

MANAGEMENT, and PROVIDENCE :

HOSPITAL,

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is

ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00819-WS-C Document 9 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41025

Summary Calendar

EDGAR S. ARROYO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. RODRIGUEZ; R. BLEDSOE,

Officer; K. GUIDRY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-96-CV-688)

February 26, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar S. Arroyo, a Texas prisoner, challenges the dismissal of his pro se, in

forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rightslawsuit in which he allegesthat prison

disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights and unlawfully were
1

 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

2 Heck, 114 S.Ct. at 2372.

3

 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 800 (1996).

2

instigated against him in retaliation for a complaint he filed against a prison guard.

Arroyo contends that the district court erred in dismissing, under the teachings of

Heck v. Humphrey,

1

the entirety of hislawsuit for failure to demonstrate favorable

termination of the underlying disciplinary proceedings.

Arroyo’s due process claim is not actionable because the conviction has not

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by the executive, invalidated by other

state means, or called into question by the issuance of a federal habeas writ.2

Dismissal of the due process claim therefore was appropriate and is affirmed.

To the extent that the district court dismissed Arroyo’s retaliation claim

under Heck, however, the order appealed constitutes an abuse of discretion. We

recently addressed this issue in Woods v. Smith.

3

 Accordingly, that portion of the

district court’s order must be and the same is vacated and remanded for further

proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

August 9,2010

 

Securitiesand Exchange Commission

4505th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Donald C. Ewigleben, President and Chief Executive Officer of UraniumResources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2010 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| */s/* Donald C. Ewigleben                                         | * * |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Donald  C. Ewigleben                                              |     |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer   and Chief Operating Officer |     |
| August 9,  2010                                              |     |

 

----