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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7065

DARRYL LAMONT HUNTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KEVIN MARSEE, Lieutenant for Anderson County

Police Department; PHILLIP WEST, Investigator

for Anderson County Police Department, in

their individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-02-886-0-20BD)

Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Lamont Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Lamont Hunter appeals the district court’s order

accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss without

prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to show

proof of service of process on the Defendants. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Hunter v. Marsee, No. CA02-886-0-20BD (D.S.C. May 28, 2003). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41266

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR ANGEL MATAMOROS-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-210-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Angel 

Matamoros-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Matamoros-Perez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41266 Document: 00513956199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
No. 16-41266

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

 Case: 16-41266 Document: 00513956199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Woods, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 358]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 28, 1999 *(People v Woods,*
      *595262 AD2d 668), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 14, 1997.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, Acting P. J., Ritter, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
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 quarterly report of Nuvim, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Richard
        P. Kundrat, President, and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 Date:
        August__, 2005
 
 
 /s/
                  Richard P. KundratRichard
                  P. Kundrat, President and
                Chief
                  Executive Officer






33
<PAGE>

         BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III
                             (A Limited Partnership)

                                  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 of Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax
Credits L.P. III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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
     Partnership.



                                          /s/Jenny Netzer
                                         ------------------------------------
                                          Jenny Netzer
                                          Principal Executive Officer and
                                          Principal Financial Officer
                                          Arch Street III, Inc. as
                                          Managing General Partner of
                                          Boston Financial Qualified
                                          Housing Tax Credits L.P. III


                                          Date:  September 5, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Sixth Amendment to Executive Deferred Compensation Trust



 Exhibit 10.47 
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION TRUST 
 (November 8, 2002 Amendment and Restatement) 
 THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT, dated as of the seventeenth day of November, 2009, by and between Fidelity Management Trust Company (the
“Trustee”) and The Progressive Corporation (the “Company”); 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Trustee and the Company heretofore entered into a Trust Agreement dated November 8, 2002, with regard to The
Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Trust (the “Trust”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company hereby
directs the Trustee, in accordance with Section 5 and 8(g) of the Trust Agreement, effective after the close of business on November 17, 2009, as follows: (i) to liquidate all participant balances held in the American Beacon
Small Cap Value Fund – Investor Class at its net asset value on such day, and to invest the proceeds in the American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Institutional Class at its net asset value on such day; (ii) to redirect all
participant contributions directed to the American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Investor Class to be invested in the American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Institutional Class; and (iii) to permit no further investments in the
American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Investor Class as an investment option for the Plan. The parties hereto agree that the Trustee shall have no discretionary authority with respect to this sale and transfer directed by the Company. Any
variation from the procedure described herein may be instituted only at the express written direction of the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Trustee and the Company now desire to amend said Trust Agreement as provided for in Section 12 thereof; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the Trustee and the Company hereby amend the Trust Agreement by: 
  

	 	(1)	Effective November 17, 2009, amending the “investment options” section of Schedule “A” to add the following: 


 

	 	•	 	 American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Institutional Class 


  

	 	(2)	Effective after the close of business on November 17, 2009, amending the “investment options” section of Schedule “A” to delete the
following: 

  

	 	•	 	 American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund – Investor Class 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trustee and the Company have caused this Sixth Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers
effective as of the day and year first above written. By signing below, the undersigned represent that they are authorized to execute this document on behalf of the respective parties. Notwithstanding any contradictory provision of the agreement
that this document amends, each party may rely without duty of inquiry on the foregoing representation. 
  

													
	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION	 		 	FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY
							
	By:	 	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett	 	 	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Carolyn Redden	 	12/18/09
		 	Its Authorized Signatory	 		 		 		 	FMTC Authorized Signatory	 	Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Nieves, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 34]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J., on dismissal motions; Nicholas Figueroa, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 11, 1998, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The court properly permitted the People to introduce a series of photographs depicting the victim’s injuries, taken from various angles and at various times. These photographs were not inflammatory and were relevant to prove that the injuries resulted in permanent disfigurement *(see, People v Wood,*79 NY2d 958, 960).

The court’s definition of reasonable doubt was entirely in accordance with *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247, 252).

Defendant’s motions to dismiss the indictment were properly denied. The record supports the motion court’s finding that defense counsel agreed to the joint presentation to the same Grand Jury of the instant matter and an unrelated attempted murder case, and agreed to represent defendant with respect to his Grand Jury testimony on both cases. Furthermore, the joint presentation of the two cases was not unduly prejudicial, and defendant received meaningful representation with respect to the Grand Jury proceedings. In any event, neither the joint presentation, nor any of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s examination of defendant before the Grand Jury, impaired the integrity of the proceedings *(see,*CPL 210.35 [5]; *People v Jones,*239 AD2d 234).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------



Consents of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, File No. 333-40949) pertaining to the Capital Bank, N.A. Retirement Savings
Plan; the Registration Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-91063) pertaining to
the Capital Holdings, Inc. Stock Option Plan; the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, File No. 333-91061) pertaining to the Capital Holdings, Inc. Incentive
Stock Option Plan; and the Registration Statement (File No. 333-91057)
pertaining to the Capital Holdings, Inc. Amended and Restated Director and
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 14, 2000, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Capital Holdings, Inc., incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1999.







                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP



March 10, 2000
Toledo, Ohio
c o cn
t cn 

# ^5 zO 5>c:-n 5^f= f—'Zi 1 •:•! &> 

# P'o' £^^^s:s'-Ca;- /^cz-^-rA^^'Acyzzriff'A^ ^yf^i^r-rz-c'^ ^cy/S^ d'AfAo/^^^ooA ^ZcrAf/4rd''A <Z^ 0 O ^ 

### ^,///^ ^ y^/ze/a^f-rc A^fyy^^'^cLZjtAfe^y^^tz/zaS . y^dituf^ y^^-Aiyy-^z,-^ y^£>z-ryzy^/'^, y:Ccyy^^y>afy y'yy^^cc/<j^ t^y/- yy/y/oeAyy ^y^yAZ/irayyC ^y/^ycyycc/rc^ //A>t^ yy^t^tv— ypcyczr^cC 

## gryfc<^ yyj^Me/Zd7Ar yy'-y/ys ^yysy. /J yy^^z^eZ-c: y^/s yZ^- /^^jo^^y yctyy- yy^ff^dZ^ ^ y^-Ai^ yyviyroCe. 

### ^yy /s' yyy y/Z/yy^^ Ziyy^/t^ yyypy- z/^yy/Lyiyy//'Zi, <jy*yryyyc yyyvyyeoc/z ^A<r/iy ^yyy^,^^^yy/^ y*yy ZZycy^yc-^y ZPcy/S;, zace^^

•a O y^'^y-^ftZj cZo-^yj-y-y^/„ ^y-y., y^y!> cZy/zye y^zvyd/fyc^^ —zAyty-ca

— ^ 

### y^cy^*^ zrcyyeee. <??-' C'Tyyy/y^S', y^^yy*yY cZyifye yyAtAdy^y^o^ ^y 'yyfy- yOezyA'^y^t^ aZ^^-e yy^CyjOy^-ncC Zyyyyc^ fyyyy^ y^y^eyry>-**'-Zy y^yycZydsC

—^^yy/zayAyZ^^ yy^Usey<ya. 4::^£^atP~yA-yyy^t aTy^ye Zz-Fenyz^ 

# y/ey^ y^Ayy-^Z-J y^yy^C'~v^y}y^.^yf^ jZ .^yyry'e^ ^y^y^ yy^/yy/fcZ2. 7^ y^y^- <Zf^X<^ ^ --^ iZ'ztyy-z^ yyyyOA'y*/ yvyZc^z^ yy/tZo^ yAc-ZAyv, Z'f'/ye A> y*^y zyy^ZAzy/^y^ yyiy^yy^y}yyy*<y^ •Xy/^A/ydy y yy^ £/yyya£y/— <??r>V«'y»*c Z-fy^cy/yCjZo =• /"^PcaZ yji^yay/iyz y^yAZy**y*.-Z- eXc^ //Zyi/^y^e^ cZZzZy y$5«3^^yyw'/*ro^ yf^ZfAZ y^^y z^zaZ yyyy/r/>cZr^ Z^Cc/ryyez y^yf<ry^y^CJ2— y:7y^y^'^ 

### cZcyZey^o'^ zCPy^Ay' ' f/ZZfyy^ y9y9fy.^^yt<yr.^ ^0^ y^/cTo /S i^^viai'/s/ySsps-^^st^^.^ ^/i'/t'/zcf/^y eTy^JoP a> '
a o 

### ,/^y»yyt-/er y^'^ /^ye>y^ y^yP^tz^y^/ziyx. 6^ yi^^y^ d3^-^y9-'^f 

### A> /!'Uy /yz'y^^y'^c/Z (^zf/y^yz/iryl^Z^f- o y^y- yy^/yy^a-/ ytfyrof^^ ^^yye yfysyijry/^AzS^ //ytf yd-ey.—' /'yy/^yy/fy y*y1(Pi^ei^z/^ y/^c^e

«. -O ly'yyy/'zecJ^ /0^z/, cf C ^ / ^yytp^yycuf yz^yzyzegzy yctzyp^ ^ 

### y^/zye^z/yzy^ ys^ y^^iy^P^e^ypez-T^ y^cyyp yiyytyyy-- yy^Ps^^oyyc^C. y^y y0yyyy^^ y^yz^y-' yy^ yyyyy/^yyoc£je. ^y-yy 
/^!Py*-tP^ Z'^7'y/^. 

### yp/y yy^yzyzyy/yzy^ ^0yyc/iiryyi^ y!fzi^ayz^>t^ yy>cyyz^

t9 /^crayipyyy, yPz^yz^y^ ^ y^ yy^cyvjizftry /y'Cy yy/ej/^yrryz^yo'-^ y*yyzye:^ yy a y^ y^<N /ci ^'ey'^^dySt^

_____ O ^ O -3 z0/yy^/O /l/Pyrjy^ycoT y<y/y/Lyty^ -yiye^^ y^-fy-yep, .-^ yy,^ y^rrz^C



### (^y^^i'yyyyr. 0yy iy^y.yyj z0czy^yp^y^yCy^^c. y^yzyyj^yy/- y7y~-y^/'yy*<^^ y^ yyyszy^iyy'^yy^ yzyy^y^-cL. y^ cr y/yyz yyy/^yyy^^y<2_ 

### y^Ptzy?^ y^epyaz^z^ yy^z" (^. yPyzyy^-y^yyy^ <=r/yyyy yiyyryzp fi^v'/ey^

^•^^yyy y^ez^y /Z^yy/Cfhyecyi yyi-yf^c<f ycyzyyac^ y-zo yt^y^yz^yz/^- 

### y^zpPepyy

— ^'^laCyyyc'Vpy^ —y^zz>yyy- y<yyzy»!z.~^f^ y^yy^y/z-y^ y^(ffy-yfizy^/"y^^ z=' O . ^y~ y0~yjy^yy-e y^Azayue yiyzc^efyczs^ y>P/z^^ /c z^Azs^
-Q l^yyz^fZcy y/z^ yfz^iCc/y^y^ y/^^ryfyyc.^ yzzczyy- yoy/rc^yyy^-fgf^ 

### y^g-zty z:P/yyy/^y y^^z-eyyzo^^ y^yfyzyz-^zr/y yCPz-zyzz-yzySgj- cTzz/yy^ Qj^^Jy y/yrzyjy^ yz^yy^yze^y-C. yy^czyy^ey^

^ o y^/y (PyWrzpyyr- y-^yeyz:;^^ Z^lr—yyyzzrz.^e yyyyyyzz^cPl

o ^ ^ ^y^cyoyi^czT /^eyyytyeP y/^ y^yjiPy-azm..yy^-^tpyy<j^. 0yy^y y^yy^tS- *^z^^yy yyz'CdCzsAea^ y^^caztyhr^ 

## p/^ffyy y/^yz^yz/z^' /f^oCa0^yiycyyz. ^iCcyyzyey yy/^yyyzzzyyoC-^^ /^z^zz^yyz^yyz- ^ ^ zpy- /'S'yj'y<^^.
#### Andover Retail Services Inc. et al., Appellants, v Lincoln Metrocenter Partners, L.P., Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 15]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 10, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff real estate brokers entered into a brokerage agreement with defendant pursuant to which defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs two percent of the base rent for the entire term of a fifteen-year lease between defendant and Record Town. Because there was a clause in the lease permitting Record Town to terminate the lease after the fifth year if its gross sales did not reach a specified amount, defendant and plaintiffs agreed that defendant would pay the brokerage commission *270due for the first five years of the lease and reserve payment on the balance, liability for which would depend upon whether Record Town exercised or waived its right to terminate the lease. Defendant paid plaintiffs for the commissions accrued for the first five years of the lease. Subsequently, during the third year of the lease, defendant and Record Town entered into a surrender and cancellation agreement of the lease in exchange for a $3,000,000 payment from defendant to Record Town.

The IAS Court’s decision to grant defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs’ motion seeking the balance of the brokerage commission for years six through fifteen of the Record Town lease was proper. Paragraph 4 (i) of the brokerage agreement specifically provided that “if, after the Lease shall have been executed and exchanged by [defendant] and Tenant, the Lease shall be canceled, or terminated and not thereinafter reinstated * * * before all of the installment payments of the Lease Commission in connection with the Lease have become due and payable, then, from and after the effective date of such cancellation or termination of the Lease * * * [defendant] shall be relieved and discharged from paying any of the subsequent installments of such Lease Commission.” Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 525 -CV In re City of F ort Wor th, Texas and Charles Bosw ell, City Manager , in h is of fi cial capacity as the C ity’s inf orm ation of

fi cer

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Re lato r s h a v e f

il e d a mo ti o n to d is mi s s th e ir p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f ma

n d a mu s. The relators also reque st the return of documents filed with their petition. The rea l parties in intere st do no t opp os e th is m oti on . A c c or din g ly , w e g ra nt r e la tor s’ mot ion

a nd dis mis s th e pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) . The re l ators shall contact the cle rk’s off ice to make arr ang ements for

the re turn of the r eporte r’s re cord a nd the two seale d exhibi ts filed with the petition fo r w ri t of

mand a mus .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Filed: Oc tober 3, 2007
Opinion filed October 24, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00243-CR

__________

JOHN LEE NAIL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 90th District Court

Stephens County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F33653

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

John Lee Nail, Appellant, has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his

appeal. In the motion, Appellant states that he “no longer desires to appeal this 

Cause . . . and requests that the appeal be voluntarily dismissed.” Pursuant to 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2, the motion is signed by both Appellant and his counsel. 

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

October 24, 2013 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
Compensation Arrangements for the Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.26 
 Compensation Arrangements for the Executive Officers 
 Set forth below is a summary of the compensation by SEACOR Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) to its executive officers in their positions as of the date of filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”). All of the Company’s executive officers are at-will employees whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of
Directors. 
 Base Salary. Effective January 1, 2010, the executive officers are scheduled to receive the following
annual base salaries in their current positions: 
  

				
	 Name and Current Position
	  	Base Salary
	 Charles Fabrikant, Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	700,000
	 Randall Blank, Senior Vice President
	  	$	375,000
	 Dick Fagerstal, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Finance
	  	$	335,000
	 John Gellert, Senior Vice President
	  	$	365,000
	 Alice Gran, Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs and Risk Management
	  	$	350,000
	 Paul Robinson, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	$	350,000
	 Richard Ryan, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	350,000
	 Matthew Cenac, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
	  	$	250,000

 Cash Bonus and
Share Incentive Plan. In their current positions, the executive officers are eligible to: 
  

	 	•	 	 Receive an annual cash incentive award subject to the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. 



 

	 	•	 	 Participate in incentive programs, which currently involve awards of restricted stock and stock options pursuant to SEACOR Holdings Inc.’s 2007
Share Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.31 to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007). 


 Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements. In their current positions, the executive officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s broad-based benefit programs generally available to its
salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, and a qualified 401(k) plan.
Exhibit 32.1







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

In connection with the Annual Report ofCormac Mining 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 here of (the "report"), I,Brian Roberts, Chief Executive 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2009.

BRIAN ROBERTSBrian RobertsChief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer











---