alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (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 Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
              ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
              Commission on the date hereof (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 as of, and for, the periods presented in
              the Report.


/s/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
August 5, 2004
#### In the Matter of Steven DiJoseph, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

January 7, 1992

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Naomi F. Simon*of counsel *(Hal R. Lieberman,*attorney), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Steven DiJoseph was admitted to practice in the Second Department on February 6, 1974. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

*79By affidavit dated July 3, 1991, respondent is seeking an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11 permitting him to resign as a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

Respondent acknowledges that an investigation is pending before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee into allegations that he is guilty of professional misconduct. Specifically, respondent states that he was the managing attorney at the law firm of Morris J. Eisen, P. C. from February 1983 until October 1984.

In November 1990, while under no pending indictment, respondent voluntarily testified in Federal court under a grant of immunity at the racketeering and conspiracy trial of Morris Eisen, Esq., and other members of his firm. During the course of that trial respondent admitted to misconduct involving fabrication of evidence, forgery and perjury in a significant number of judicial proceedings.

Respondent acknowledges that if charges were predicated upon the foregoing misconduct under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges.

Respondent also states that he is voluntarily cooperating with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in connection with its ongoing investigation into the conduct of other attorneys either previously associated with Morris Eisen or having professional relationships with Mr. Eisen, and others.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee supports respondent’s request for permission to resign, and acknowledges that respondent’s cooperation has contributed substantially to its investigation.

The affidavit of resignation submitted by respondent fully complies with the requirements of section 603.11 of this court’s rules governing the conduct of attorneys. Respondent acknowledges that (1) he is the subject of a pending investigation or disciplinary proceeding into allegations that he has been guilty of misconduct; (2) his resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered; (3) he has not been subjected to coercion or duress; (4) he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation; and (5) that if charges were predicated upon the misconduct under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges.

Accordingly, respondent’s resignation as a member of the Bar should be accepted and directed to be filed, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

*80Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s resignation is accepted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective January 7, 1992.
Entities Whose Registration Has Expired

2/1/2019

ERO is PSD's Eastern Regional Office

MRO is PSD's Midwestern Regional Office

WRO is PSD's Western Regional Office 1 of 1

Region Entity Type Expired Entity Name DBA City State Run

WRO Dealer 06/04/2011 Yates, R. Todd Logan UT 02/01/19
FILED IN

Afo.

JOhJ TH- £

Court of cr\m\NAL APPEALS

. austla/,te")(as received in

Saul Salinas apr 172015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

T7/F Jr/rrF /^ 7FXA.S

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 17 2015 FkOM APPEAL. a/C 03-fc-ooinc&

Abel Acosta, Clerk TRiAL CaUSET Aid. ^JjH

S/ia/ Saba Count i

First Motion for extension dftimet6 file

PeriTlOA/ FDR DISCRETJOA/AKJ KEVIETW

To The. /-/onorablc- ducla€3 oF ^he. Courts &t CrunimJ

APPEALS : °

Comes A/otOj SaaLSahh^ PhF/J-jonenQhclfiles SiisMatioA/ fbd

On EXTENSioM 6-T SittyCteCd Jay in IvL^l Jv A'/e. (Uikbr? For QiScjreA-ionafy P*u/c~lQ~XN Support- df Jhh moho^j feH+iOner S/>oIMS W»e Ccur-r -/Ae &>//£> iJ/rtj? **

OZ

The -Mihk>/Jer ufas ComJiohd/h Ae 33 dmiaul biUricJLourj- ofi SartSabcK. (Louniy'• Te&chS b~P of/'enSe. ofAaarvuJu4ecl
No. 03-14-00445-CR

ALICIA MIDKIFF § IN THE COURT OF 

APPEALS

§

V. § THIRD JUDICIAL

§

THE STATE OF 

TEXAS

§ DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, ALICIA MIDKIFF, Appellant, through her counsel of 

records on appeal, and files this motion for extension of approximately 30 days in 

which to file her appellate brief in the above-entitled and numbered case. In 

support of this motion, Appellant shows the Court the following:

I. 

The current deadline for filing the appellant’s brief on appeal has not passed. 

The current deadline for filing the appellant’s brief is April 6, 2015. There have 

been one previous request for extension of time to file this brief.

II. 

Although counsel has been diligently working on this case, the regular press 

of criminal defense business in the trial courts of Williamson and surrounding 

counties has limited the amount of time counsel has had to complete the drafting of 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00445-CR

4782862

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/7/2015 9:35:56 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/7/2015 9:35:56 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Appellant’s brief. Counsel fully expects this brief to be completed within the 

requested extension period, and apologizes to the Court for the necessity of filing 

her request for extension.

Counsel’s affidavit is attached, attesting to the above-described situation.

WHEREFORE, appellant prays the Court grant this motion and extend the 

deadline for filing the brief from April 6, 2014 to May 6, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________

Crystal D. Murray

SBN: 24029611

1001 Cypress Creek Rd., Ste. 405

Cedar Park, Texas 78641

512-257-1010

512-257-0005

crystal@cedarparklaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

 /s/Crystal D. Murray
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

fax to the Williamson County Attorney’s Office on this the 6th of April, 2015 at 

512-943-1120.

________________________________

Crystal D. Murray

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I have discussed the merits of this motion and the relief 

requested by this motion with the Appellee’s attorney, James Lamarca, via email

and prior to the filing of this motion, on April 6, 2015. Mr. LaMarca is unopposed 

to this motion.

________________________________

Crystal D. Murray

/s/ /s/

 Crystal D. Murray Crystal D. Murray
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ada Harvey, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered August 11, 1989, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s knowing possession of the cocaine in question beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*Penal Law § 220.25 [2]). The evidence demonstrated that when the police entered the curtained-off room where the defendant and her codefendants were found, the table around which they sat held a triple-beam scale with cocaine on it, as well as plastic bags and vials, some of which had been filled with the drug. This evidence established the defendant’s close proximity to drugs and related packaging paraphernalia open to view in a room other than a public place, such that the defendant is presumed by statute to have knowingly possessed them *(see,*Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; *People v Riddick,*159 AD2d 596; *People v Alexander,*152 AD2d 587). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Torres,*158 AD2d 730, 731).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its *Sandoval*ruling permitting the People to inquire into whether or not the defendant had ever been convicted of a felony *(see, People v Aguilera,*156 AD2d 698, 699). By not permitting inquiry into the facts of the defendant’s prior drug sale conviction, unless the defendant chose to deny the fact of her prior felony, the court struck a fair balance between avoiding prejudice to the defendant while permitting the People to test the defendant’s credibility *(see, People v Garvey,*115 AD2d 618).

Having failed to alert the trial court in a timely manner of her contention that the undercover police officer was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case, the defendant *755waived her claim that the court should have delivered a missing witness charge with regard to this individual.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE IV

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 2

RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT

Article 54

(ex Article 48 TEC)

(ex Article 48 TEC)

Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States.

‘Companies or firms’ means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making.

---
ACCEPTED

01-14-00120-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/14/2015 2:27:25 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/14/2015 2:27:25 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### James Edward WALD, Petitioner, v. Richard CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. O-77-545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 16, 1977.

For the reason above set forth, we find the present application for Writ of Mandamus to be prematurely filed. We further observe that in the event the petitioner asserts in a future application that he is entitled to immediate relief, if credits are granted, he should set forth with specificity the time and dates these credits were earned and cite the authority under which he claims these credits. For the purpose of an application for a Writ of Mandamus to correct time computations, any petition filed in excess of 60 days prior to the claimed date of release will be deemed to be prematurely filed.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be, and the same is, hereby, *DISMISSED.*

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 16th day of August, 1977.

Hez J. Bussey, P. J.

Tom Brett, J.
Exhibit 21

                              Subsidiaries


     Avcon Industries, Inc., a Kansas Corporation

     Butler National Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
     formerly Lauderdale Services, Inc.

     Butler National Corporation Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
     a Kansas Corporation, formerly HSD, Inc.

     Butler National Service Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

     Butler National, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
     
     Butler Temporary Services, Inc., a Missouri Corporation

     Woodson Avionics, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation

     Cansas International Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

     R F, Inc., a Missouri Corporation

     Valu Foods, Inc., a Kansas Corporation


<PAGE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


     As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into Tom Brown, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-42991, 33-44225,
33-60191, 33-60842, 33-13157, 33-30069, 33-42011, 333-56577, 333-69353,
333-31426, 333-89031, and 333-89033.



                                          WILLIAMSON PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, INC.

March xx, 2000
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

632 

KA 13-00310 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEONARD LEE BURDEN, ALSO KNOWN AS LB, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JAMES S. KERNAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LYONS (RICHARD W. YOUNGMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M.

Kehoe, J.), rendered January 31, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his

plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance

in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant

contends that County Court erred in enhancing his sentence without

affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see generally

People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241-242, cert denied 419 US 1122). 

“Defendant, however, failed to preserve that contention for our review

because he failed to object to the alleged enhanced sentence and did

not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction

on that ground” (People v Epps, 109 AD3d 1104, 1105; see People v

Gerald, 103 AD3d 1249, 1250). We decline to exercise our power to

review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of

justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]), and we conclude that the sentence,

as imposed, is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2023 ‐ Quarter 2

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, BLACK BAG-50 KG 180 $196,416.00 $1,091.20

BEANS, PEA BAG-50 KG 60 $64,965.60 $1,082.76

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 160 $151,033.40 $943.96

BULGUR BAG-50 KG 1,090 $989,910.90 $908.18

CORNMEAL BAG-HP-25 KG 10,160 $8,055,604.90 $792.87

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 9,810 $9,788,225.20 $997.78

EMERGNCY FD, LNS-MQ POUCH-300/50 G 10 $40,571.18 $4,055.09

EMERGNCY FD, SF-LNS POUCH-300/50 G 10 $47,574.68 $4,755.09

FLOUR, ALL PURPOSE BAG-50 KG 860 $720,100.00 $837.33

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 2,180 $2,053,780.00 $942.10

OIL, SUNFLOWERSEED CAN-6/4 L 130 $454,567.14 $3,496.08

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 450 $933,829.30 $2,074.95

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 14,001 $31,903,055.04 $2,278.70

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 320 $226,593.80 $708.11

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 35,760 $26,919,695.70 $752.79

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 2,850 $2,322,840.60 $815.03

RICE, 3/15 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 8,920 $6,839,856.60 $766.80

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 23,500 $17,518,103.90 $745.45

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 9,520 $3,895,696.60 $409.21

SORGHUM BULK 105,270 $35,879,545.40 $340.83

SOYBEAN MEAL BULK 46,670 $27,831,187.80 $596.34

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 400,320 $154,190,827.70 $385.17

WHEAT, NORTHERN SPRING BULK 15,000 $5,563,590.00 $370.91

Grand Total 687,231 $336,587,571.44

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE‐ 50 KG 9,613,000 $6,463,795.00 $0.67
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2501

FRANCES L. PLEMICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SCOTT ORTHOPEDIC CENTER, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CA-95-422-3)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: December 30, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frances L. Plemich, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Allen Wilson, Jr.,

CAMPBELL, WOODS, BAGLEY, EMERSON, MCNEER & HERNDON, Huntington,

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Frances L. Plemich appeals the district court’s order granting

Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her claims

arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 1998), and the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)

(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Plemich v. Scott Orthopedic Center, Inc.,

No. CA-95-422-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50359

Summary Calendar

 

GREGORY THOMAS DICKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN CORNYN, Attorney General, 

State of Texas; WILLIAM C. ZAPALAC,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CV-387-JN

--------------------

October 26, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Thomas Dickerson, Texas prisoner # 592865,

challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Texas officials, asserting that the

application of the procedural bar to his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas corpus petition was error. This is the same claim

Dickerson raised in the prior habeas proceedings. 

The district court’s dismissal was not error because

Dickerson’s complaint was an attempt to relitigate the issue of
No. 00-50359

-2-

the procedural bar and was thus a challenge to the underlying

constitutionality of his confinement; as such, it was barred by

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The instant

appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R.

42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit counts as a

“strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and this court’s

dismissal is another strike. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Dickerson is CAUTIONED that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP

in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Independent Auditors' Consent


 Exhibit 10(i)

 








INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT


 



To the Board of Directors of




C.M. Life Insurance Company


 



          We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 333-80991 on Form
N-4 of our report dated February 15, 2002 for the Panorama Passage Segment of C.M. Life Multi-Account A and of our report dated March 1, 2002, on C.M. Life Insurance Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs referring to the use of statutory accounting practices and the change of certain accounting practices as a result of the State of Connecticut Insurance Department’s adoption of the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners’ Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual effective January 1, 2001, all of which practices differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America), appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information.


 

DELOITTE
& TOUCHE
LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut



April 25, 2002
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Report.
 /s/ Steven M. Cavanaugh

Steven M. CavanaughVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 7, 2007
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hua Chen, Chief 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:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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  22, 2011/s/ Hua ChenHua ChenChief Financial Officer





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.