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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND ROGER SURRATT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00250-RJC-CH-19; 3:08-cv00181-RJC)

Submitted: August 30, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Roger Surratt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Roger Surratt, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Surratt 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Gasco Energy, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark A. Erickson,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to
my knowledge, 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/ Mark A. Erickson
                                    Name:  Mark A. Erickson
                                    Date:  March 15, 2005



<PAGE>




                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Gasco Energy, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, W. King Grant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify, to my
knowledge, 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/ W. King Grant
                                    Name:  W. King Grant
                                    Date:  March 15, 2005
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

156) ll-E-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 156 of 276 
P.2 

, Kami B 

CONVERSATION F 

510-01 

II-E-7 

*& 

TE 

r-i i-t a 

TYPE 

• VISIT Q CONFERENCE 0 TELEPHONE 

• INCOMING 

Location of Visit/Conference: |g OUTGOING 

NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT 

WITH YOU 

A r t FOLU 

ORGANIZATION (Office, dept., bureau, 

etc.) 

E"fut/*3 V ^/IT>-»<»''- K rn^t-"i'it'/afitk 

TELEPHONE NO. 

SUBJECT /,-./; , f / - / 

ROUTING 

NAME/SYMBOL 

^cC^cket 

roorS. 

P*rr*// 

Y^'i. e 

fl-0-eDotHV.il 

INT 

SUMMARY 

/)0r. FvJJtoef ba£ pripa*.rcJ- a~ C-e.por'h on //'fe eyhzcAS/OH 

thai- Ue. expects. uAU b^ pu^)''<A P. J *» G.a:r\y "July. 

Q:.4- ^ C t L f Gives rough gp./ieri C 

d£~h7 iw a-hes E^T (Easts fo r /"fe g/rgofS/'o ^ 

g-L 100 MW bailer. The. )o^^t cost Ut6u./J be- tf/03>//k.. 

i £ £ £2 U y 

I'ib <e.*ftt*£ i or, loau/J r\oi J?g elor\e~ cdE a. hotter 

o r ^ / ^ aboT/er -tAgf t-ogL-g butt I t be-rare. }15~~7. 

ftoefca's <Lsf>»taL+*Jl' cost.?*-. &^/kU)y 

E .;. \ \~ <X^r 

\.\ . • 

L^..f» V\ 

\\,A\ wxL Ek x ^ 

/"» \ 

ACTION REQUIRED rsps^ 

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE 

(>B" cn^r-aS J<&/^6-£^\s 

DATE 

£~-/z-$p 

ACTION TAKEN 

SIGNATURE DATE 

50271-101 iVGPO i 1984 O - 461-275 (317) CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL FORM 271 (12-76; 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
#### Zainab KAMARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Mary Lou McDonough; Abu Kalokoh; Meskerem Asresahegn, MD; David Ijeh, MD; Adedeji Adewunmi; Diamon Baker; Shayla Stewart; Yvette Ford; Dawn Taylor; Lt. Col. Harry L. Hilton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6292

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Zainab Kamara, Appellant Pro Se.

Gessesse Teferi, Erin Nicole Williams, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY *&*KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zainab Kamara appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Kamara’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kamara’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Kamara has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny Ka-*297mara’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                   iDNA, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (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, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby
represent, warrant and certify 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. McNamara
----------------------------------------
Name: James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

Date:  December 14, 2006

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.

                                       40
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 633 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to exempt certain 

direct primary care arrangements from regulation as health insurance 

coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to exempt certain direct primary care arrangements from 

regulation as health insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Direct Primary Care 

5 Accessibility Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 633 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTING CERTAIN DIRECT PRIMARY CARE AR2 RANGEMENTS FROM REGULATION AS 

3 HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. 

4 Section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 300gg–91(b)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, except that 

7 such term shall not include a direct primary care ar8 rangement (as defined in paragraph (6))’’ before the 

9 period; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) DIRECT PRIMARY CARE ARRANGEMENT.— 

13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

14 subparagraph (B), the term ‘direct primary 

15 care arrangement’ means an arrangement 

16 under which an item or service is furnished by 

17 a health care provider to an individual in return 

18 for a direct fee. Such a fee may include— 

19 ‘‘(i) a monthly retainer; 

20 ‘‘(ii) a membership fee; 

21 ‘‘(iii) a subscription fee; or 

22 ‘‘(iv) a fee for a service, visit, or epi23 sode of care. 

24 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘direct pri25 mary care arrangement’ shall not include any 

26 arrangement unless— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 633 IH

1 ‘‘(i) a copy of such arrangement is 

2 provided to the individual entering into 

3 such agreement (or the legal representative 

4 of such individual); and 

5 ‘‘(ii) such agreement— 

6 ‘‘(I) is in writing; 

7 ‘‘(II) describes the items and 

8 services to be provided in exchange for 

9 payment of a direct fee (as described 

10 in subparagraph (A)); 

11 ‘‘(III) specifies the direct fee re12 quired and any additional fees to be 

13 paid by a third party; 

14 ‘‘(IV) specifies the individual’s 

15 payment obligation; and 

16 ‘‘(V) prohibits the provider from 

17 charging or receiving additional com18 pensation for items and services in19 cluded in the direct fee.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of State of New York-Unified Court System, Respondent, v District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 1070, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 623]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered May 15, 2002, which granted petitioner Unified Court System’s (UCS) application to permanently stay arbitration demanded by respondent union on behalf of two probationary employees terminated by UCS, and denied the union’s cross motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Arbitration was properly stayed on the ground that there is no reasonable relationship between UCS’s termination of the probationary employees and UCS’s alleged noncompliance with the performance evaluation system set out in section 7.3 (a) of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement *(see Matter of Board of Educ. [Watertown Educ. Assn.],*93 NY2d 132, 143 [1999]). That section establishes a procedure for deciding whether UCS’s employees, including probationers, are entitled to incremental and longevity salary increases, not whether a probationer should be permanently appointed. The latter decisionmaking is governed by section 25.22 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR 25.22). As Supreme Court noted, it is particularly significant that the collective bargaining agreement provides a procedure for terminating permanent employees but is silent as to the termination procedure applicable to probationary employees *(see Matter of Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes v City of Cohoes,*94 NY2d 686, 694-695 [2000]). We have considered the union’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Charles IZAC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-35938

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Charles Izac, Pro Se

Natalie K. Wight, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee

*333Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Charles Izac appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, *see Marrero v. Ives,*682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Izac was convicted in the Northern District of West Virginia of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because he had suffered three prior convictions for first degree burglary from the State of Virginia. Izac filed a section 2241 habeas petition in the district of his confinement—the District of Oregon—challenging the legality of his sentence.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted Izac authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 motion challenging his sentence. Izac currently has a section 2255 motion pending in Northern District of West Virginia case number 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES. In light of the pendency of this motion, Izac cannot show that section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” *Marrero,*682 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotations omitted). The district court therefore properly dismissed Izac’s section 2241 petition for failing to meet the requirements of section 2255(h)’s escape hatch. *See id.*

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
S p e cia l c o ns id e rati o n s for Ec o n om i c An a l y s i s (Use th isfle ltli o explai 11 rmy 1hi n g in l ir e Es limw etl Co s r s ru b l e r/J(// ll'a s a ssum e d o r m i glr t Jml h i! o bvi o u s. T!tis} i i! l d c an al so b e u sl! d 10 e x pl

ainw a rr a nly 

### cos t . 1) : 

### Se c 74 7 - 5 3/\ 2 68 2 Rl and 747

- 53 !\ 2 852 RO Executi v e Onl e r 12866 : 

### Co u ld t he /\0 b e c o n s idered a · · s i g ni tlc a n t regu lat o ry

# ti**on ~**  YES * 

## 0 NO 

### [g) *Ex p l anat io n: DOT Re g ul atOt') ' P o li c i e s 

### a n d Pr o c e dur e s : 

### I s th e AD s i g ni fican t ? 

## @ Y E S * 

## 0**~** 

### * Exp l n nnti o n : R e g ul at o r y Flc x ih ili ty Act: 

### W i ll t h e J\ 0 

### h a ve a s i g n ifi c ant e c ono mi c impact o n 

### a s ub st an ti al n um be r 

### of s ma ll e miti c s ? L.:xp lain l o r 

### e ith er a Y es or N o 

### an swe r. @ 

### YE S0**NO~** 

### L.:xp ln n a ti o n : Int ras t ate Av i ati o n in A l as l <a: 

### T h i s AD co 11l d nll cc t int ra s tat e a v iation in A l a s ka. I s i t ap pr o prin t c t o in c lu de s p cc i li c req u ir e me n t s f

o r a irc r a rt o p crntcd in /\ I a s ka w he re av in t i

o n mi g h t b e th e <)n l y m o d e 

# or tmn s p or tat ion ?

# ~ YES * 

## 0 NO 

### [g)

.. E x planati on:I 

### .{, , If<:. ,f1t
. '/. R e g ul a tOr)' Ev al u a tion


### Docket No
. FAA

- 

# '20/)-3'? [3 Di recto r a t

e I dentifier:
- AD 

# JO!S: Alki--1'-11-A 

# D**~/yu u**  

### makl! c hange s tv 1 /w I ' OIII t'
. \ i n t/1(' 

### Whll! he/ow
. 

### y o u muste n s ttre 1ft e 

### tow ! s 1/ fldale 

### Ct C con l in)!. ! y. 

## 1 / !I

t t.!)' clo tw t . 

### click ( nr J'ah) ill 

### t o oncl ! llen /J ill 

### of t/1<: 

### c hanged ce ll
. Es t i m at ed Co s t s : Act i o n Costs p<!r P r o du c t**(c ~**  . • a ircra ft , e n g i ne, ( e.g . . In spect i o n , ,_ Q r opc ll c r, a p p lia n ce) r ep l ace me nt ) Work

- h ou rs Labor P or

ts Cos t To ta l Cos ts N umb er of Total C o st Do 11 0 1 i ndudl! 011 - ( i n clu de cost (l a bo r t- 

### u. s . l or 

### u. s. F leet c omli t ion**c:o~ ~**  h t> re access, t est i ng , 

### (@S85 / h pflrtS) Re g i s t e r e d and c l ose·t lj.) ) our) Pr o duct s 

### See 74 7-53/\2452 

# Vp 1& <Jgif R I**~cc** 

### 747-5J A 2852 

### '**~0** 

# Up te (,96 

## -**~** 7'1'7- 5**Jll~ .J**  

## J.... f/ll 

### t; 

## sc}b



## ·- i



## ---

·---- -- -

1-- The kn o wn number o f pro du cts 

### i11 comp l ianc:e: To t a l Cos ts of' co mr l ianc c for U.S. fle et : 

# s 0



## -**Cost ~** **vcred** under wa rrant y ((f'k n mrn) 

# s 1- ..

O n -Cond it io n

# Costs**~** 

# -- - --- Action Wo r k-hours Lab or c os t Part s Cost Cl 'S t per Product (e
. g .. Insp ect i on. (include access, (@S85/ h our) rcplncement ) testing. and doseu p) 

# ____ .. 

### See 747 -5 3A2452 

### /'vJ**~.f, "."f,v** **c.** 

### dr.._ t 

### RI I' 

### See 74 7 -53;- \ 28 52 

## M**c:~ -fi** **,.,.fw •**  

## t.lr • 1 •

, RO

-

- -- -- 

### - '- - 

## - -- · · -
#### Patrick O’Riley, Respondent, *v.*Nelson McChesney, Appellant.

(Argued May 22, 1872;

decided May 28, 1872.)

*673Plaintiff was the owner of a grist-mill upon a creek in Rensselaer county; defendant owned a flax-mill upon the same creek, above plaintiff’s mill. He threw the refuse flax or shives into the stream, which formed a bar in plaintiff’s dam. Held, that the question whether this was a reasonable and ordinary use of the water was a question of fact for the jury. The top of the bar formed was lower than the bottom or apron of plaintiff’s flume. Defendant asked the court to charge that plaintiff' had, therefore, sustained no damage; this was refused. *Held,*no error; that plaintiff was entitled to have his pond clear so that he could lower his flume. Yarious other questions were disposed of, upon thé ground of the insufficiency of the exceptions.

*John H. Reynolds*for the appellant.

*W. A. Beach*for the respondent.

Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur; Peokham, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, the Chief Executive Officer of Asian Financial
Group, Inc. (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: May 16, 2003

/s/Dempsey K. Mork
Dempsey K. Mork
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, the Chief Financial Officer of Asian Financial
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: May 16, 2003

 /s/Norbert LeBoeuf
Norbert LeBoeuf,
Chief Financial Officer
<Page>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

   The undersigned, Ronald J. Ivans, Chief Financial Officer of the managing
owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing Owner'), of
Prudential Securities Strategic Trust (the 'Trust'), hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

   (1) The Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Trust.

/s/ Ronald J. Ivans
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Ivans
Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner
August 14, 2003
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








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of BRIGHTCUBE, INC. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Brightcube, 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 the Company.








Dated: May 4, 2010





/s/Michael Manion





Michael Manion


Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Michael Manion





Michael Manion


Chief Financial Officer