alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan

G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now

retired.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3613

___________

Kent Richard Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

John Stuart, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006 

Filed: December 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kent Richard Jones appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal with prejudice of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude

dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons explained by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 33.2



MANAGEMENT’S
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Management of the Trust & Securities Services department
of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) is responsible
for assessing the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission
to determine which criteria are applicable to the Company in respect of the servicing platform described below. Management has
determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:



Platform: The Honda Auto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust
asset-backed securities transaction, the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the
Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”).



Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d), except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company
performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). With respect to the Platform, servicing
criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.



Period: Year ended March 31, 2016 (the “Period”).



With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s
management provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:



1. The Company’s management is responsible for assessing
the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.



2. The Company’s management has assessed the Company’s
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period. In performing this assessment, management used the
criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.



3. Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company
has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of and for the Period.











| | DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
| | ------------------------------------
| |                                     
| | By:                                 
| |                                     
| |                                     
| |                                     
| | DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
| |                                     
| | By:                                 
| |                                     
| |                                     



Dated: May 27, 2016
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NE L S ON UL I S E S VI L L AL AT AB E R R E R A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72651 A ge nc yN o. A 041- 132- 053 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N e l s on U l i s e s V i l l a l a t a - B e rr e r a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E lS a l va dor , pe t i t i ons pro se f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r o m an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s r e mo v a lo r d e r . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED OC T 31 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72651 2 § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law , Kha n v. H

older , 584 F . 3d 773, 776 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio nf o rr e v ie w . T he agency di d n oterr i n fi nd i ng V i l l al at a- B erre rare m ov abl e und er 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , a s an a l i e n c onvi c t e d of an a ggr ava t e d f

e l onydrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( B ) . H i s s t a t e c onvi c t i on f or c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s c o c a in e f o rs a le h a s an e qu iv a le n t f e d e r a l f e lo n y , se e 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 4 6 ; R endo n v. Mukasey , 52 0 F . 3d96 7, 97 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ [A ] st at e d ru g cri m e i s an ag g rav at edfel o n y i f i tw o u l db e p u n i sh ab l e as a f e l onyunde rthe f

e de r a ldrug l aw s . ” ) , and the j udi c i a l l ynot i c e abl e c onvi c t i on d o c u m e n ts in th e r e c o r dr e v e a l th a t th e c o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e a t is s u e w a s c o c a in e , se e V alenci a v. G on zales , 43 9 F . 3d10 46 , 10 54 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( courtm ayconsi der tr an s c r ip t f

r o m th e p le ap r o c e e d in g s u n d e rth e m o d if ie dc a te g o r ic a l ap p r o a c h ) . I n lig h t o f

h is a g g r av a te df

e lo n yc o n v ic tio n , th e a g e n c yd idn o t e rrin c o n c lu d in g th a t V illa la ta - B e rr e r aw a s in e lig ib le f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (a )( 3). P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 March 29, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12951

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 05-03059 CV-TWT-1

NATIONAL VIATICAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

GROVER T. MITCHELL,

DORIS E. MITCHELL,

Interested PartiesAppellants,

versus

HON. JOHN OXENDINE, individually and in his

official capacity as Insurance Commissioner of Georgia,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(March 29, 2007)
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

The Appellee’s Motion for Award of Rule 38 Sanctions is DENIED. 1

2

Before DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Western & Southern Life

Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 653, 101 S. Ct. 2070, 2075

(1981).

AFFIRMED.1
EXHIBIT 32.2
            Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Financial Officer

                 Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries



                  In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report on  Form 10-Q  of
Citizens  Financial  Corporation  (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report") I, Len E. Schweitzer,  Vice President and Treasurer of the
Company,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  s.s. 1350, as adopted pursuant to s.s.
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  results of  operations of the
Company.


                                 By:       /s/ Len E. Schweitzer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Vice President and Treasurer

Date: May 14, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43983-43984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is 
available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bfff9eaefeeeae5eae7f2f8e2f8cbede6e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="710503101514101f101d0802180231171c125f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 012487-001.
    Title: Eastern Car Liner Ltd/Austral Asia Line Pte. Ltd Space 
Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Eastern Car Liner, Ltd. and Austral Asia Line Pte Ltd.

[[Page 43984]]

    Filing Party: Paul Coleman; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman; 1050 
Connnecticut Avenue NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment clarifies the geographic scope of the 
Agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: September 15, 2017.
Rachel E. Dickon,
 Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20040 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN 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 Onyx Software Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert J. Chamberlain,
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 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: May 10, 2006

By:    /s/ ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN
    ----------------------------------
          ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
IIA 

Calendar No. 479 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture 

relating to inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Ms. AYOTTE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. 

FLAKE, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

MAY 23, 2016 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed 

on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Secretary of Agriculture relating to inspection of 

fish of the order Siluriformes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Agriculture relating to ‘‘Mandatory Inspection 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 28 PCS 

1 of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived 

2 From Such Fish’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 75590; December 2, 

3 2015), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 479 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapSiluriformes. ing to inspection of fish of the order submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture relat- ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

MAY 23, 2016 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

802(c), and placed on the calendar 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                 SCHEDULE 12(B)

                   TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EBITDA TO INTEREST EXPENSE
                                  (IN MILLIONS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         NEW BASIS OF ACCOUNTING                  PREDECESSOR BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
                                         -----------------------   --------------------------------------------------------
                                           FISCAL    PERIOD FROM    PERIOD FROM          
                                           YEAR      FEBRUARY 11,  MARCH 1, 1996        
                                           ENDED       THROUGH        THROUGH                   FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                                          MARCH 31,    MARCH 31,    FEBRUARY 10,             THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY
                                                                                        -----------------------------------
                                           1998         1997           1997              1996          1995          1994
                                          -------      -------        -------           -------       -------       -------
<S>                                       <C>        <C>           <C>                  <C>           <C>           <C> 
EBITDA ..............................       $26.2         $3.1          $19.6             $22.8         $24.3         $24.0
Interest expense ....................        37.9          5.0             --                --            --            --
Ratio of EBITDA to interest expense..         0.7          0.6             --                --            --            --
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Abdullah Faruq WOODS, Appellant.

No. 07-2445.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2008.

Filed: July 1, 2008.

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Abdullah Woods challenges the concurrent 124-month prison sentences the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing -with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of a *484mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. On appeal, he asks this court to remand for resentencing, arguing that the district court should have considered the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, as well as the Sentencing Commission’s then-proposed two-level reduction in offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, as supported by the subsequent enactment of Amendment 706 and recent Supreme Court cases discussing a district court’s sentencing discretion, *see Kimbrough v. United States,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007); *Gall v. United States,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We affirm.

Woods’s argument that the court should have considered the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is unavailing because he did not raise this issue at sentencing. *See United States v. King,*518 F.3d 571, 575-77 (8th Cir.2008) (defendant who did not ask court to consider disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine in determining his sentence cannot argue on appeal that court erred by failing to consider that factor). The court properly sentenced Woods according to the Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing, and the later-enacted Amendment does not require resentencing. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (court shall use Guidelines manual in effect on date of sentencing unless use would violate Ex Post Facto Clause); *King,*518 F.3d at 576-77 (rejecting defendant’s argument that, because he was sentenced for crack cocaine offense prior to November 1, 2007, case should be remanded for resentencing in light of recent Guidelines amendment).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, but without prejudice to Woods’s ability to move for modification of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). *See King,*518 F.3d at 577.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID ONDRE CAREW,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-566

[May 11, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cymonie Rowe, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502009CF015199A.

David Ondre Carew, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Schick Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey T. Slovin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.  /S/ Jeffrey T. Slovin

Jeffrey T. Slovin
Chief Executive Officer
Schick Technologies, Inc.
February 2, 2006   17
exv10w29






Exhibit 10.29




Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation




     Each non-employee director of Celanese Corporation (the “Company”) is entitled to (i) an
annual cash retainer of $85,000, which is paid in quarterly installments, and (ii) an annual equity
retainer of $85,000 in restricted stock units (awarded at the first regular board meeting following
the Annual Meeting of Stockholders). In addition, the chair of the nominating and corporate
governance committee, compensation committee and environmental, health & safety committee receives
an annual fee of $10,000 and the chair of the audit committee receives an annual fee of $20,000.
The presiding director receives no additional compensation for his services as such.



     Non-employee directors are also able to participate in the Company’s 2008 Deferred
Compensation Plan, which is an unfunded, nonqualified deferred compensation plan that allows
directors the opportunity to defer a portion of their compensation in exchange for a future payment
amount equal to their deferments plus or minus certain amounts based upon the market performance of
specified measurement funds selected by the participant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo Alejandro MORALES-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10103.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Daniel G. Bogden, Esq., Robert A. Bork, Esq., Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rene L. Valladares, Esq., FPDNV-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rodrigo Alejandro Morales-Perez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed upon remand, following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry of a deported *969alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales-Perez contends that the district court erred by conducting a limited resentencing hearing upon remand rather than a full resentencing hearing pursuant to this court’s order. We conclude that the district court did not fail to follow this court’s order on remand. The district court conducted a resentencing hearing which included allocution by counsel and at which Morales-Perez was present and afforded an opportunity to address the court. *See United States v. Perez,*475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2007). Because the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range and took into account the relevant sentencing factors, and because the sentence imposed was not unreasonable, we affirm. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1279-80 (9th Cir.2006); *United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order entered November 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01263-CV

MARK JORDAN, Appellant

V.

JP BENT TREE, LP, JP ABERDEEN PARTNERS, LP, JP-2400 LAKESIDE, LP, RE 

CLOSING, LLC, AND JP-LAKESIDE JOINT VENTURE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07168

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 22, 2019 unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than 

January 6, 2020. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we caution that further extension 

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------







                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-66826, 33-78546, 33-95432, 333-57249,
333-103049, and 333-96903) and Form S-3 (File Numbers 33-71416, 333-1748,
333-54804, 333-64734, 333-76556, and 333-90654) of Able Laboratories, Inc., of
our report dated January 31, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Able Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


         /s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.
         Boston, Massachusetts
         March 25, 2003