alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Meeting Scheduled for December 3, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hiIfnYqZ3v\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-december-3-2018\/\">Commission Meeting Scheduled for December 3, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-december-3-2018\/embed\/#?secret=hiIfnYqZ3v\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Scheduled for December 3, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"hiIfnYqZ3v\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 32

                 Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Alan Gold, President
and Howard Grunfeld, Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.,
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 U.S. Neurosurgical.


/s/ Alan Gold
-------------
Alan Gold
President
August 12, 2004


/s/ Howard Grunfeld
-------------------
Howard Grunfeld
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2004


                                       13
#### Christopher Scott FRANCIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roderick SOWERS, Warden, RCI-H; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 07-6874.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 28, 2008.

Decided: May 5, 2008.

*358Christopher Scott Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Scott Francis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Francis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
**CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Trinity3 Corporation (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shannon
        T. Squyres, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that:
 
 (1)  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  September 20, 2005
              /s/
                Shannon T. SquyresBy:
                  Shannon T. SquyresIts:
                  Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to Trinity3 Corporation and will be retained by Trinity3 Corporation
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – December 15, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Odu3CLpmBN\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-december-15-2017\/\">Applicants – December 15, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-december-15-2017\/embed\/#?secret=Odu3CLpmBN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – December 15, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Odu3CLpmBN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### ACME MARKETS, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS, LOCAL 6.

Civ. A. No. 78-1103.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 15, 1979.

Alfred J. D’Angelo, Jr., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for plaintiff.

Bernard N. Katz, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Acme Markets, Inc. (Acme), has appealed from an arbitrator’s award in favor of defendant International Union of Bakery & Confectionery Workers, Local 6 (Union), holding that Acme had violated the provision in the collective bargaining agreement that barred lockouts. This matter arose by reason of a strike by the Meat Cutters Retail Joint Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity (the Meat Cutters), which stride was the subject of opinion by this Court in *Philadelphia Food Stores v. Retail Clerks International,*458 F.Supp. 577 (E.D.Pa.1978). In that case Arbitrator Lewis Gill had found that an illegal lockout had occurred when Acme, Food Fair Stores, Inc. (Food Fair) and the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A&P), the three members of the Philadelphia Food Store Employers’ Labor Council (the Council), closed their stores in response to a strike by the Meat Cutters which was accompanied by picketing of Food Fair only. This Court reversed Arbitrator Gill, holding that for an illegal lockout to occur, there must be offensive conduct by the employer, not just strategic conduct.

In the instant case, the closure complained of was in response to the closing of the Acme stores mentioned above. Because the stores had been closed, it was not economically feasible for the bakery maintained by Acme to remain open; it was therefore closed. Arbitrator Robert Koretz subsequently issued an award in favor of the Union, holding that said closure constituted an illegal lockout in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

 However, as this Court held earlier, an illegal lockout cannot exist absent offensive conduct by the employer. In the *Philadelphia Food Stores*case, we held that closing of stores to prevent whipsawing of a multi-employer bargaining unit and to preserve the integrity of the unit was not *1137offensive conduct, even if it was strategic conduct. In the instant case, the closure was not strategic, but was based solely on economic conditions. Accordingly, we conclude that Acme did not violate its agreement with the Union and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.
#### Lee P. WALKER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7121.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2010.

ORDER

Lee P. Walker moves without opposition to withdraw his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The Secretary’s motions to waive Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and dismiss are moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"License Applicants – November 16, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eSDu5hpSi5\"><a href=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-november-16-2015\/\">License Applicants – November 16, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-november-16-2015\/embed\/#?secret=eSDu5hpSi5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“License Applicants – November 16, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"eSDu5hpSi5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
*The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. ___________ No. 96-1714

___________ Richard Lee Sanders * * Petitioner - Appellant * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Michael Bowersox, Superintendent* * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent - Appellee * * Submitted: November 21, 1996 Filed: December 10, 1996

___________ Before MCMILLIAN and M. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard Lee Sanders (Sanders) was convicted of first degree murder, but the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed this conviction. On retrial, Sanders was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed both his conviction and the denial of post-conviction relief. In his petition for federal habeas corpus relief, Sanders alleged he was denied his right to a fair trial, as well as his right to confront a witness against him. He also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied-2- relief, concluding that the unavailability of a witness at trial did not deprive Sanders of his confrontation rights and that his right to a fair trial was not abridged. The court further concluded that trial counsel's performance was not deficient. On appeal, Sanders challenges only the confrontation and fair trial rights conclusions. Having searched the record and considered the parties briefs we find no merit in Sanders' contentions, and we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of AudioStocks, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis J. Leung, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the
following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Luis J.
Leung


Luis J.
Leung


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





April 9,
2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

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

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

 October 24, 2018

d1017

Order 

Clerk

October 24, 2018

157728

WAYNE A. SMITH,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 157728

COA: 335644

MTT: 15-004331-TT

TOWNSHIP OF FORESTER,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 13, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report
of CurrencySharesSM Japanese Yen Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl G. Verboncoeur, Chief
Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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

Date: January 25, 2008

/s/ Carl G. VerboncoeurCarl G.
Verboncoeur*Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)

*The Registrant is a
trust and Carl G. Verboncoeur is signing in his capacity as the principal executive
officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Francisco JIMENEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40104

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Randall Barrera, Esq., Law Office of Randall Barrera, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*926Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Francisco Jimenez-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Jimenez-Garcia has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
EX-33 (d)
(logo) REGULUS

Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

1.   Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100  Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. Section
     229.1100-229.1123 ("Regulation AB"), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its
     wholly-owned subsidiaries (individually and collectively "Regulus"), is
     responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria
     applicable to the remittance processing services it provides to customers
     who are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and
     who have requested confirmation of Regulus' compliance in connection with
     loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset
     backed securities transactions (the "Platform"). Remittance processing is a
     service whereby check payments that are remitted by mail to a post office
     box are collected, processed through a highly automated data capture
     system, and prepared for deposit to a bank account held by the beneficiary
     of the payment.

2.   The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used
     in Regulus' assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the
     servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of
     Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities it performs with
     respect to the Platform (such criteria the "Applicable Servicing
     Criteria"). Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing
     criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the
     activities it performs with respect to the Platform because Regulus does
     not participate in the servicing activities referenced by such servicing
     criteria.

3.   As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in
     all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in
     Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB.

4.   KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
     report on Regulus' assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
     Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that
     attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

/s/ Kimberlee Clark
Kimberlee Clark
Chief Financial Officer

February 22, 2007



860 LATOUR COURT  NAPA, CA  94558  TEL: 707.254.4000  FAX: 707.254.4070
REGULUSGROUP.COM