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

,. - a,1a1~31_ -. 

CB_a_&.b:~ .. <5 L~w\_<Ltlfl"J: c:ldE& 

-, 0 O_f-U_\,_}..a.l!)._'B..~~--O_Ql'1:t,~L7 

£o_R-r_~_o_~ 't}:t_~:r:£~a.s~&l~tlo 

1u_)~k._2_2_.,_2_0_l~ -

.aB_Ek_B.C.O_S ·:ra_,_cL~ &..~ 

Co.:u_&.L_O_)~QR\~.\1\\RL ~~_\'_'£_e.\...&_o)=" I-e~R..s 

E._Q_.._~-a~Ll,.30_B-?_c_B.f_\:ro_l S"lBJ'~ 

8.v_s :r_\_,~_l_3_'E.~B..S_28_7_ll 

B:.t ·. WJ~ .. _::_:L, 7 ").. 7_- 3\ 

- =t'!L-C.:1~tu.O_._C._:_'2._:L7_:_0_LO ~ f> 7 - 03_8_.2..8__13-=-G 

, D.EJ:\_R._C.LE_&,'&_, 

X,._a_~W-~\:!_tru~-rio~ u:u_~~~R~ s . ~o_i~ \_p.}_\)~tm~_o_u:r:_. 

1"-'li.E tns_eo_s...:l:tla_-ru_o_f :JHt. Si."E-_'E E.R:t.tU-L"\:..t:>_uu_s_'G 

Ill _u ®_13 _t._- -~ ')_1.1":_ - }H~ ~ . l&R:"1' ·. _J \'b s:l,L\.. f_-e rut> '\~_)_N__CD_:u&::i_ 

I 

·. ~" N-CJ-&~L ~"' -- -h-'i 

...>-

0Q_~~~ AA-~ 

. 

. R~£EIVEL11N ~- CRIMfNAf _ _.li'PEALS 

' jtJN-IT"20!5 

~beiAc~. ClerBt 

-;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN BISHOP,

(AIS # 272754)

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0252-WS-C

:

REGINA BOLAR, et al.

Defendants.

:

:

:

ORDER

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

issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the 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 summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants 

Regina Bolar, William Gillis, Brian Ezell, and Kelly Smith, and all claims presented against 

these defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 20th day of May, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00252-WS-C Document 39 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 1
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 8

- BG

- 60

IN RE DIANE L. KROUPA

A Judicial Member of the Bar of the 201 7 D DN 339

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 38 86 6 7

BEFORE: Thompson and Beckwith

, Associate Judge s , and Farrell, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED

– May 3, 2018)

On consideration of the certified order of the Minnesota Supreme Court

disbarring respondent by consent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction ; this

court’s February 5 , 201 8

, order suspending respondent pending resolution of t his

matter and directing h er to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be

imposed ; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel ; and it appearing that respondent

failed to file either a response to the court’s show cause order or her D.C. Bar R.

XI, §14 (g) affidavit , it is

ORDERED that Diane L. Kroupa is hereby disbarred from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and

In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical

reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not

participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstat ement respondent’s

period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as s he files a D.C. Bar R.

XI, § 14 (g) affidavit

.

PER CURIAM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### National Institute of Food and Agriculture

          - 7 CFR Part 3407

### CFR Correction

In Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2000 to End, revised as of January 1, 2014, on page 442, in § 3407.4, in paragraph (a), add a heading to read “Director”, and in the first sentence, add the word “Director” between “The” and “is”.

[FR Doc. 2014-30467 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Wellstone Filters, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Learned J. Hand,
Chief Executive and Financial  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, to the best of 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.



|Dated:  June
5,2009
By
 /s/ Learned J. Hand
-----------------------------    Learned
J. Hand    Chief Executive and Acting Financial
Officer   (Principal Executive and Financial
Officer)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0196

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DUSTIN LEE LEGARE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 21, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2020

07/15/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0196
Exhibit
32(f)


CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


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


FOR PPL
ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,
2008





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered
Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  August
      1, 2008
            /s/  J.
      Matt Simmons, Jr.J.
      Matt Simmons, Jr.
              Vice
      President and Controller
              PPL
      Electric Utilities Corporation





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric R. Pearson, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 359]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J), rendered March 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer.

In full satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to two concurrent 12-year prison terms, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to be served consecutively to the sentence defendant then was serving. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant contends that the plea allocution was not factually sufficient and, further, that his plea should be vacated due to County Court’s failure to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense. These claims are not preserved for our review, however, as the record fails to reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Campbell,*81 AD3d 1184, 1185 [2011]; *People v Jones,*73 AD3d 1386, 1387 [2010]; *People v Phillips,*30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 869 [2006]). Moreover, defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated an essential element of the crimes so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation rule or obligate County Court to inquire as to a potential intoxication defense *(see People v Campbell,*81 AD3d at 1185; *People v Jones,*73 AD3d at 1387; *People v Phillips,*30 AD3d at 911). Notably, “County Court had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of intoxication based upon comments made by defendant during the . . . sentencing proceeding” *(People v Phillips,*30 AD3d at 911; *see People v*
      *1117
      *Ortega,*70 AD3d 416, 417 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 808 [2010]; *People v Garbarini,*64 AD3d 1179, 1179 [2009], *lv denied,*13 NY3d 744 [2009]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Stein and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 02, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 57 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 49 -J SM- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us PASCUAL GARNICA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 2, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Dan ie l L. Cas ti ll o, ap po in te d c ou ns el forPas cu al Garn ic a in th is di rect

cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p rep aredpu rs uantto Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 73 8, 8 7 S .Ct. 1 39 6, 1 8 L.Ed .2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re reco rdrev eal s t ha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o a rg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andGarn ic a’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e und er Co un t On e are AFFIRMED .

2
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1823 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1823 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMO2 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in 

5 Brooksville, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean 

12 Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09

- 18

- 00073

- C R



### ________________

BILLY WAYNE GILLILAND

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR33359

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Billy Wayne Gilliland guilty as an habitual offender

of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and a ssessed punishment at confinement

for life. Gilliland appealed his conviction.

Gilliland ’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.2 1978). On June 25 , 20 18 , w e granted an extension of time for Gilliland to file a pro

se brief. We rec eived no response from Gilliland

.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unneces sary to order

appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submi tted on October 11 , 2018

Opinion Delivered October 24, 2018

Do Not Publish

B efore McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

1 Gilliland may challenge our decision in th is case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00204-CR

Cedric Jerome Dixon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 56688, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Cedric Jerome Dixon was convicted of aggravated robbery following his

plea of guilty. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003). The court sentenced him to twentyfive years in prison.

Dixon’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). Dixon received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: September 15, 2005

Do Not Publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TRENNIS WADE CHAPMAN, SR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00795-WS-B

LOUISIANA CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,:

et al.,

:

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and

is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to service of process,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DONE this 12th day of May, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:07-cv-00795-WS-B Document 24 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.13

     SUMMARY OF MR. SAMUEL M. VEASEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY

   On  December  1,  2005,  Mr. Veasey entered into an oral, at-will employment
agreement with Wellstone pursuant  to  which  he  is  paid  an annual salary of
$120,000 as compensation for his services as Chief Financial Officer.  In 2005,
Mr. Veasey received $48,000 and the balance of $72,000 is to be paid at a later
date.  In addition, Mr. Veasey has been granted options under  the  1994  Stock
Option  Plan,  as  amended,  and  is eligible to receive additional grants on a
going-forward basis.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2391 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2391

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to temporarily prohibit the 
 transfer of a firearm to, or the possession of a firearm by, a person 
  convicted of a misdemeanor in which a firearm was used, carried, or 
                               possessed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

  Ms. Slotkin (for herself, Ms. Kuster, and Mr. Trone) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to temporarily prohibit the 
 transfer of a firearm to, or the possession of a firearm by, a person 
  convicted of a misdemeanor in which a firearm was used, carried, or 
                               possessed.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Crime Left Behind Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON THE TRANSFER OF A FIREARM TO, OR THE 
              POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY, A PERSON CONVICTED OF A 
              MISDEMEANOR IN WHICH A FIREARM WAS USED, CARRIED, OR 
              POSSESSED.

    (a) Prohibition on Transfer.--Section 922(d) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (10);
            (2) in paragraph (11)--
                    (A) by striking ``(11)'' and inserting ``(12)''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``(10)'' and inserting ``(11)''; 
                and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
            ``(11) during the preceding 3 years, completed a sentence 
        imposed under law for a misdemeanor in which a firearm was 
        used, carried, or possessed; or''.
    (b) Prohibition on Possession.--Section 922(g) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8)(C)(ii);
            (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) who, during the preceding 3 years, completed a 
        sentence imposed under law for a misdemeanor in which a firearm 
        was used, carried, or possessed,''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall 
not apply with respect to any sentence imposed for a misdemeanor 
conviction entered before such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
#### PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER PLANS, INC., Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee, v. LEADING EDGE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant Cross-Claimant Appellant.

Nos. 05-14686, 06-12082

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2006.

Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and RYSKAMP,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Leading Edge Insurance Group, Inc., appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict holding Leading Edge hable for fraud and violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). Leading Edge also appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Appellee, Professional Employer Plans, Inc. (PEP), the denial of its request for attorneys’ fees for the civil theft claim, and the denial of its motion for remittitur.

In its opinion dated August 2, 2005, the district court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and denied Leading Edge’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for the fraud claim and NJCFA claim and motion for remittitur. The district court awarded PEP attorneys’ fees and costs under the NJCFA because the jury found Leading Edge committed an unconscionable commercial practice. The court also found that Professional Employer Plans presented substantial support for its civil theft claim and therefore refused to award attorneys’ fees or costs to Leading Edge for that claim.

We have heard oral argument, thoroughly reviewed the Record, and concluded the district court committed no error.

AFFIRMED.
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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rosemary Mazanet, Acting Chief Executive Officer certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 9th
day of August, 2005.

/s/ Rosemary Mazanet
---------------------
Rosemary Mazanet
Acting Chief Executive Officer