alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed; Opinion Filed October 1, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00351

- CV

MELINDA LEHYE AND AL L OCCUPANTS , Appellant

V.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 06692

- D



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Nowell

On September 12, 2019, we notified appellant he r brief w as overdue and directed her to

file, within ten days, both the brief and an extension motion in compli ance with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). Although we cautioned appellant that failure to file the brief and

motion as directed would result i n the appeal being dismissed , the brief has not been filed

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

190351F.P05 /Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MELINDA LEHYE AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00351

- CV V.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 06692

- D. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, Justices Myers and Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee CitiMortgage, Inc. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Mel inda Lehye and All Occupants.

Judgment entered this 1 st day of October, 2019.
#### Julia Dixon et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 315]

*841In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 8, 2005, which denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the claims to recover damages caused by exposure to lead-based paint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff, born October 16, 1992, resided in the subject premises since birth. The premises, which is owned or managed by the defendants and is not a multiple dwelling, was the subject of two lead-based paint abatement orders: order No. 92-429 involving the bedroom and order No. 93-1166 involving the bathroom. The New York City Department of Health did not deem the premises free of lead-based paint hazards until July of 1996. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the claims to recover damages caused by exposure to lead-based paint, claiming that the defendants’ efforts to remedy the lead-based paint hazards were unreasonable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, triable issues of fact preclude the granting of summary judgment. In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie establishment of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of their remedial efforts with respect to order No. 92-429, involving the bedroom *(see Chapman v Silber,*97 NY2d 9 [2001]). Although it appears, with respect to order No. 93-1166, involving the bathroom, that the defendants were negligent as a matter of law in waiting until June 26, 1995, to hire a plumber to repair active leaks, it cannot be determined as a matter of law from this record whether that negligence constituted a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries *(see Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team,*88 NY2d 628, 648 [1996]). Indeed, the plaintiffs concede that “the issue of proximate cause of injury may need to be submitted to a factfinder.”

Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the claims to recover damages caused by exposure to lead-based paint was properly denied. Florio, J.E, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.
HNZ 10K 4/28/2013 EX10ALXI






Exhibit 10(a)(lxi)


FORM OF AMENDMENT TO 
LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE PROGRAM AWARD AGREEMENT
(FISCAL YEARS 2013-2014)




This Amendment (“Amendment”) to Long-Term Performance Program Award Agreement (Fiscal Years 2013-2014) is made effective as of __________, 2013, by and between [EMPLOYEE NAME], an individual (“Employee”), and H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation (“Company”).


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, Employee and Company are parties to that certain Long-Term Performance Program Award Agreement (Fiscal Years 2013-2014) dated _______ (the “Award Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among the Company, Hawk Acquisition Holding Corporation, and Hawk Acquisition Sub, Inc., dated as of February 13, 2013, the MDCC has determined that the Award will be paid at 100% of the Target Award Opportunity, and the Award Agreement is amended accordingly.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements and covenants contained herein:


		
	1. 
	Award.  The Award Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Company's performance against the ROIC Target metric and the TSR Value metric is deemed to be such that 100% of the Target Award Opportunity is earned for the Performance Period, subject to pro-ration and payment in accordance with Section 4(d) of the Award Agreement. 




2.    Miscellaneous.  


		
	(a)
	Defined Terms.  Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Award Agreement.




		
	(b)
	No Other Modification.  Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




		
	c)
	Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 






H. J. HEINZ COMPANY




By:    /s/ Randolph W. Keuch            
Vice President - Total Rewards
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3541 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3541

 To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2010

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Deepwater Drilling Royalty 
Prohibition Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ROYALTY INCENTIVES FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any oil or gas lease sale 
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
with royalty-based incentives in any tract located in water depths of 
400 meters or more on the outer Continental Shelf.
    (b) Royalty Relief for Deep Water Production.--Section 345 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15905) is repealed.
    (c) Royalty Relief.--Section 8(a)(3) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(D) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs 
                (A) through (C) or any other provision of law, the 
                Secretary shall not reduce or eliminate any royalty or 
                net profit share for any lease or unit located in water 
                depths of 400 meters or more on the outer Continental 
                Shelf.''.
    (d) Application.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section--
            (1) apply beginning with the first lease sale held on or 
        after the date of enactment of this Act for which a final 
        notice of sale has not been published as of that date; and
            (2) do not apply to a lease in effect on the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12(b)Entergy Gulf States, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2002
2003
2004
2005
2006Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest charges
$144,840
$157,343
$133,598
$126,788
$149,780Interest applicable to rentals
16,483
16,694
13,707
8,832
8,928Total fixed charges, as defined
161,323
174,037
147,305
135,620
158,708Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
6,190
6,485
6,991
6,444
5,969Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$167,513
$180,522
$154,296
$142,064
$164,677Earnings as defined:Income (loss) from continuing operations before extraordinary items andthe cumulative effect of accounting changes
$174,078
$63,895
$192,264
$206,497
$211,988Add:Income Taxes
65,997
24,249
108,288
110,270
107,067Fixed charges as above
161,323
174,037
147,305
135,620
158,708Total earnings, as defined
$401,398
$262,181
$447,857
$452,387
$477,763Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
2.49
1.51
3.04
3.34
3.01Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
2.40
1.45
2.90
3.18
2.90------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reece Rudolph, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Jack H. Weiner, Esq., 1488 State Route 203, Chatham, New York 12037 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
SCWC-30516

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I , Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
LAWRENCE PAI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30516; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00706)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Lawrence Pai’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 12, 2011, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 21, 2011. Timothy MacMaster forpetitioner/defendantappellant on the application /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30516 21-OCT-2011 09:24 AM
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 quarterly  report of Dominix,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ending  March  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on May ___, 2004 (the  "Report"),  I, Alan
Cohen,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Alan Cohen
-----------------------
Alan Cohen
Chief Financial Officer

May ___, 2004

A signed  original of this  certification  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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS FOUND
ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          91,440
<SECURITIES>                                    55,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                       663
<INVENTORY>                                     10,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,510
<PP&E>                                          35,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     246,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   292,426
<SALES>                                         43,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,293
<CGS>                                           20,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,334
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COMM ONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Germantown Cab Company, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Respondent : No. 586 M.D. 2014

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, January 1 2

, 2016

, having considered petitioner’s application

for reconsideration and re argument and respondent’s response thereto

, the

application is denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1538

REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CODE ENFORCEMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON MUNICIPAL COURT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Sherri A. Lydon , District Judge. ( 2:23

- cv - 00516

- SAL )

Submitted : October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Samuel T. Whatley , Samuel T. Whatley, II, Appellant s Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1538 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley and Samuel T. Whatley, II, appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice t heir action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Whatley v. City of N. Charleston , No.
2: 23

- cv - 00516

- SAL (D.S.C. May 12, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1538 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
96-2730.

#### Wagner v. Midwestern Indemn. Co.

Seneca App. No. 13-95-51. (Appeal of Verlin L. and Ruth A. Wagner, and cross-appeal of Midwestern Indemnity Company.)

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2309

IRIS MCCLAIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE/WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; THE 

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Bony Mellon; WILLIAM SAVAGE; 

KRISTINE BROWN; ROBYN MCQUILLEN; MONICA CAMERON; LORI S. 

SIMPSON, District Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02084-PWG)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iris McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Wood Barnhart, Sarah E. Meyer, WOMBLE 

BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Iris McClain appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for failure 

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. McClain v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg./Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 

8:18-cv-02084-PWG (D. Md. filed Oct. 12, 2018 & entered Oct. 15, 2018). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4.1




	
  

  	
  OCERA THERAPEUT
  ICS, INC. SEAL CORPORATE DELAWARE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  SECRETARY This Certifies that is the record holder of INCORPORATED UNDER THE
  LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 67552A
  10 8 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.00001 PAR VALUE,
  OF OCERA THERAPEUTICS, INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by
  the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of
  this Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS
  the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its
  duly authorized officers. Dated: OT COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: CONTINENTAL
  STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY (JERSEY CITY, NJ) TRANSFER AGENT AND
  REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OCERA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

  






 















	
  

  	
  FOR VALUE
  RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
  OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
  ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the common stock
  represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute
  and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within
  named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated
  Signature(s) Guaranteed By THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
  GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND
  CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
  PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS
  ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
  CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
  CHANGE WHATEVER. X X NOTICE: The following abbreviations, when used in the
  inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though
  they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
  TEN COM TEN ENT JT TEN as tenants in common as tenants by the entireties as
  joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF
  GIFT MIN ACT– Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
  (State) UNIF TRF MIN ACT– Custodian (until age ) (Cust) under Uniform
  Transfers (Minor) to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be
  used though not in the above list.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6935

GRAHAM SCHIFF , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 03332

- TDC )

Submitted : October 19, 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON , and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6935 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Graham Harry Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying hi s motion to stay adjudication of a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition , concluding his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition was duplicative, granting a motion to seal filed by Respondent , and ruling on various nondispositive motions

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949).
The order Schiff seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6935 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Base Ten Systems, Inc.
Trenton, New Jersey 08619

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements No.
33-89712,  No.  33-60454,  No.  33-55752,  No.  333-00721;  No.  333-21925,  No.
333-59881,  No.  333-59883,  No.  333-59885,  No.  333-81493,  No. 333-81495 and
Amendment No. 1 to Registration  Statement No. 2-84451 of Base Ten Systems, Inc.
and  Subsidiaries on Form S-8 and the Registration  Statement No. 33-89710,  No.
333-00719,  No. 333-06317,  No. 333-21923,  No.  333-31335,  No. 333-34159,  No.
333-46095 and No.  333-70535 of Base Ten Systems,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form
S-3 of our report dated  February 6, 1998,  appearing  in this annual  report on
Form 10-K of Base Ten Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December
31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
---------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
April 11, 2000