alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: WENDELL W. PHILLIPS,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-159

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17-cv-00968-LKG, Judge 

Lydia Kay Griggsby.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

On November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Wendell W. Phillips’ case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently 

denied Mr. Phillips’ post-judgment motions on January 19, 

2018 and July 30, 2020, and then stopped accepting filings. 

On August 4, 2022, Mr. Phillips filed this petition, seeking 

to “remand this case back to the United States Court of 

Federal Claims to correct this matter and settle this matter.” Pet. at 26. 

The remedy of mandamus is available only in “exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion 

Case: 22-159 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2022
2 IN RE: PHILLIPS

or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Calmar, Inc., 854 

F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A party 

seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative 

legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; 

and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the 

circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 

U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

Mr. Phillips has not met those requirements here. 

Generally, “[m]andamus relief is not appropriate when a 

petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal 

process.” In re Fermin, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 

2021); see also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 

26 (1943) (finding that mandamus “may not appropriately 

be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure”);

In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot 

. . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Because Mr. Phillips failed to timely raise his challenges on 

appeal, mandamus is not appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

September 14, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-159 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2022
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-051-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (6 work hour(s) x $85/hour) $510

Parts per airplane $ 0

Cost per airplane $510

Number of U.S.-registered airplanes 

x 70

Total fleet cost $35,700

This AD restates the requirements of the previous AD. No new costs have been added.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Format RBLC Report Page 1 of362

II Facility Information

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Report Date: 10/1312008

II

RBLC ID: NJ-0015 (final) Date Determ ination 08128/2006

Last Updated:

01-89-3983

09/0611991 (actual)

110017417632

4931

221112

USA

Permit Number:

Permit Date:

FRS Sumber:

SIC Code:

NAlCS:

2 COUSTR\,:

KEYSTONE COGENERATION SYSTEMS. INC

KEYSTONE COGENERATION SYSTEMS. INC

A: Ne\'o1G reenfield Facility

GLOUCESTER

NJ

Corporate/Company Name:

Facilit)· ~ame:

Facilit~.. Contact:

Facilit)· Description:

Permit Type:

EPA Region:

Facility County:

Facility State:

Facility ZIP Code:

Permit Issued By: NEW JERSEY DEPT OF ENV PROTECTION (Agency Name)

VIORICA PETRlMAN (Agency Contact) (609) 292-1638 VtORlCA.PETRIMAN@DEP.STATE.NJ.US

Other Agency Contact Info: KETAN BHANDUTIA

NJ

(609) 984-6356

Other Permitting 1. SCR OR SNCR SYSTEM MUST BE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE 0.10 LBiMMBTU NOX. AfTER FNE YEARS OF

Information: OPERAnON WITH SCR OR TWO YEARS OF OPERA TION W/ SNCR SYSTEM. THE FINAL PERMIT LIMIT WILL BE

MODIFIED BY MULTIPLYlNG 1.2 WITH THENOX LEVEL THAT CAN BE CONSISTENTLY ACHIEVED. 2. COST

INFORMAnON FOR CONTROL OPTIONS SELECTED: S02 - S519fTON NOX - S3980fTON (SNCR) - S13196fTON (SCR)

STREET ADDRESS: STATE ROUTE 130 BETWEEN BIRCH CREEK AND NORTO:N"VILLE ON THE DELAWARE RIVER

IlrrocessIPollutant Information II

PROCESS BOILER (PULVERlZED BITUMINOUS COAL)

SA~fE:

Process Type:

Primary Fuel:

Tbroughput:

Process Sotes:

1L110 (Coal (includes bituminous. subbituminous. anthracite. and lignite»

COAL. BITUMINOUS

2116.00 MMBTU/H

POLU·TA~I CAS Sumber: VE

SA~IE: Visible Emissions

(VE)

Emi"ion Limit t:

Emission Lim it 2:

Standard Emission:

10.0000 % OPACITY

o

10.0000 % OPACITY

Did facton, other tben air pollution tecbnolog}· considerations influence tbe BACT decisions: Unknown

Case-by-Ca.e Basis: Other Case-by-Case

Other Applicable

Req uirement.:

Control.\1ethod: (A) FABRIC FILTER

EsL % Efficiency: 0

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POl.U'TAJIo'T CAS :"umber: PM

SA~fE: Particulate Matter

(PM)

Em i"ion Lim it 1:

Emi.";o n Lim it 2:

Standard Emission:

0.0180 LBiMMBTU

o

38.1000 LB/H

Did factors, other tben air pollution technolog}· cOll5iderations influence the BACT decisions: Unknown

Case-by-Case Ba.is: Other Case-by-Case

Other Applicable

Requiremeots:

Control Method: (A) FABRIC FILTER

EsL % Efficiency: 99.900

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

http://cfpub.epa.govlrblcfReportsfRptDetailedListingbyIdentifier.cfm?RequestTimeout=5... 10/13/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           746
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           541
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        29,900
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               0
<LOANS>                                       29,997
<ALLOWANCE>                                      277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                63,107
<DEPOSITS>                                    34,392
<SHORT-TERM>                                  10,450
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              448
<LONG-TERM>                                    4,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         106
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                63,107
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  572
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                483
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  32
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,087
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               427
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               633
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            454
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  237
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       237
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     167
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  2.92
<LOANS-NON>                                       58
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 249
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      0
<RECOVERIES>                                      28
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                277
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             277
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04088]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0114]


Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard 
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks 
display at The Wharf DC on April 2, 2022, to provide for the safety of 
life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for 
Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the 
safety zone for this event in Washington, DC. During the enforcement 
period, the operator of any vessel in the safety zone must comply with 
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying 
a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the 
location identified in line no. 1 of table 2 to 33 CFR 165.506(h)(2) 
from 7:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on April 2, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notification of enforcement, call or email MST3 Melissa Kelly, Sector 
Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: 
Telephone 410-576-2596, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5b890999c868694dbb6dbbe9099998cb580869692db989c99"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b260e070218180a452845200e0707122b1e18080c45060207">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Coast Guard will enforce the safety 
zone regulation for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC from 7:30 p.m. 
to 9 p.m. on April 2, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for 
the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our 
regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard 
District, Sec.  165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for 
the fireworks show which encompasses portions of the Washington Channel 
in the Upper Potomac River. During the enforcement period, as reflected 
in Sec.  165.506(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the safety 
zone you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any 
Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal 
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this 
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine 
information broadcasts.

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National 
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-04088 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Charles W. Terrett, Respondent, *v.*The New York and Brooklyn Steam Saw-mill and Lumber Company, Appellant.

(Submitted April 19, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

This is an action of ejectment. Both parties claimed under a common source of title. Defendant’s deed was the prior one, and bounded the land conveyed on one side *“*by the southeasterly line or side” of what was formerly known as First avenue, in the city of Brooklyn. This avenue had never been opened as a public highway, and had been discontinued by act of the legislature. The conveyance contained this clause, also, “ together with all the right and title of the grantor in and to one-half of the streets and avenues by which said lots are bounded.” There was no other avenue referred to in the description of the granted premises, and the grantor had title ■■thereto. *Held,*that defendant’s deed carried the title to the center of the avenue.

*Edgar M. Cullen*for the appellant.

*Puf us L. Scott*for the respondent.

Allen, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial. All concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**iDNA,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**


**AND
      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Robert
      V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the “Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby represent,
      warrant and certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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
      Registrant.








/s/
      Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.





Name:
      Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


(principal
      accounting and financial officer)




Date: June
      16 ,
      2008















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






43
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6612 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 

those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals 

and citizens of the United States at birth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mr. HERN, Mr. ROY, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

ROSENDALE, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. CRANE, Mr. 

GOOD of Virginia, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. TIFFANY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

Mr. BIGGS, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. OGLES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the 

United States who are nationals and citizens of the 

United States at birth. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Birthright Citizenship 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6612 IH

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS 

2 BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of the Immigration 

4 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

6 ‘‘The following’’; 

7 (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) 

8 as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—Acknowledging the right of birth11 right citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th 

12 amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the 

13 United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdic14 tion’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) 

15 if the person is born in the United States of parents, one 

16 of whom is— 

17 ‘‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States; 

18 ‘‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

19 residence in the United States whose residence is in 

20 the United States; or 

21 ‘‘(3) an alien performing active service in the 

22 armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, 

23 United States Code).’’. 

24 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub25 section (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:09 Dec 16, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6612.IH H6612

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6612 IH

1 ship or nationality status of any person born before the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Paul R. CASAVINA, Appellant.

No. 15607.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 13, 1966.

Decided Oct. 7, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 9, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 711.

See also 3 Cir., 368 F.2d 988.

Frederic C. Ritger, Jr., Newark, N. J., for appellant.

Jerome D. Schwitzer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Barry D. Maurer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the Brief), David B. Bliss, Special Counsel. Werner Goldman, Atty., S. E. C., Washington, D. C., of counsel, for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and Mc-LAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted for and tried and convicted of the fraudulent sale of securities and the use of the mails in connection with a fraudulent scheme. He raises numerous issues which, for the most part, appear to be mere afterthoughts.

Having failed to object to certain portions of the court’s charge, he now maintains, as he must, see F.R.Crim.P. 30, 52(b); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 436, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963), that clear error was committed in each of these instances or when all of these matters are considered together. Specifically, the appellant attacks the court’s charge on burden of proof, the manner in which the jury should consider and the weight to be given the testimony of co-conspirators and experts, and lastly, the failure of the court to define “accomplice” to the jury. Read in its entirety, no clear error appears in the charge. The fact that the court could easily have amplified the charge by including some clarifying language, the absence of which appellant *now*complains, is a far cry from clear error. Nor does the aggregation of these points give rise to clear error.

*988Appellant also maintains that the district court unduly limited the cross examination of an accomplice. He recognizes that at this stage such a contention must be addressed to an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Our review of the record fails to disclose any such abuse. To the contrary, the record illustrates the wide latitude enjoyed by counsel in the extensive cross examination and re-cross examination of the witness involved.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Angel Alberto FLORES, also known as Jose Francisco Ochoa-Armenta, also known as Angel A. Flores, also known as Vincent Sanchez Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3961

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 3, 2017

Filed: August 9, 2017

*470Megan A. Healy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Fargo, ND, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Angel Alberto Flores, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Angel Flores directly appeals from the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense under a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that Flores may have received ineffective assistance of counsel, and raising several sentencing issues.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. In particular, we note that Flores’s own statements at the change-of-plea hearing indicated that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).

As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed).

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed'the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the ' appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal

1

. The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
Exhibit
32.1





iDNA,
INC.


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, James
J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended October 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby represent, warrant and
certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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
Registrant.





/s/
      James J. McNamaraName:  James
      J. McNamaraTitle:
      Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)Date:  December
      19, 2008





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