alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1




PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


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




In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended April 2, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:


(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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





May 6, 2011By:
/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Anfossi, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 4,1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, entered March 8, 1985, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the antagonistic defenses presented by himself and his codefendant required the granting of his motion for a severance. The record, however, indicates that the defendant’s motion for a severance was based upon an articulated concern which the trial court resolved to his satisfaction. Where, as here, proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant the granting of a motion for a severance *(see, People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75, 87, *cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York,*416 US 905), and, under the circumstances, the *318trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion *(see, People v Bornholdt, supra).*

Our review of the record further reveals that no " 'injustice or impairment of substantial rights unseen at the beginning’ ” of the trial has occurred *(People v La Belle,*18 NY2d 405, 409, quoting from *People v Fisher,*249 NY 419, 427), and that the joint trial neither resulted in undue prejudice to the defendant nor substantially impaired his defense *(see, People v Cruz,*66 NY2d 61, 73-74, *cert granted*— US —, 106 S Ct 2888).

As to the denial of the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the record indicates that the evidence in question did not meet the criteria set forth in *People v Salemi*(309 NY 208, 216, citing *People v Priori,*164 NY 459, 472) *(see, People v Balan,*107 AD2d 811, 814-815). Therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Listen

# Kristen Clarke

## CSSBMB Commissioner

Commissioner Clarke is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. In this role, she leads the Justice Department’s broad federal civil rights enforcement efforts and works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all who live in America. Assistant Attorney General Clarke is a lifelong civil rights lawyer who has spent her entire career in public service. Throughout her career, Clarke has focused on work that seeks to strengthen our democracy by combating discrimination faced by African Americans and other marginalized communities. Her role involves ensuring civil liberties for all Americans. Clarke speaks and writes regularly on issues concerning race, law, and justice.

-  Our Mission 
-  Commissioners 
-  Offices and Staff 
-  Careers 
-  Acquisition Opportunities 
-  Rankin Memorial Library 
-  FAQs
EX-4.4





 Exhibit 4.4 
  






 
 enterprises, 1nc. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA I CUSIP 037598 10 9 I THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of D~ 33 ~ . FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $0.33~ PER SHARE PAR VALUE, OF c ~ ~5 ·    APOGEE
ENTERPRISES, INC o:n om transferable on the books of the C01poration by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this ~ ~ Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the
Transfer Agent and Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the ()o1poration and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: · TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE COUNTERSIGNED REGISTERED EQUINTI TRUST
COMPANY AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING INCORPORATED -MINNEAPOLIS SECRETARY PRESIDNET 












 



 
 THE BOARD OF THIS CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF
SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COM MON STOCK. THIS CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO ITS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE BOARD’S AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND
DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES THEN OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE
ISSUED. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM as tenants in common UTMA- _ ____
Custodian (Gust) (Minor) TEN ENT as tenants by entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors JTTEN—as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act ——-,==.——--and not as tenants in
common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in above list.    .For value received hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT
OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated X NOTlCE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAIVIE /IS VVfUITEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTlRCATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATlON OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CH.A”‘GE WHATEVER. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A PAATlCIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDAWON PROGRAM (MSTAMPj, THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. INC.
MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (MMSPj , OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALUON PROGRAM r sEMP’1 AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBUC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2456 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the sharing of data 

generated from research with the public. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the 

sharing of data generated from research with the public. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHARING OF DATA GENERATED THROUGH NIH4 FUNDED RESEARCH. 

5 Section 402 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 282) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(m) SHARING OF DATA GENERATED THROUGH

9 NIH-FUNDED RESEARCH.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2456 IH

1 ‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

2 the Director of NIH may require recipients of the 

3 award of an NIH grant or other financial support, 

4 provided that the research is fully funded through 

5 such grant or other support, to share scientific data 

6 generated from research conducted through such 

7 support for research purposes. 

8 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The Director of NIH shall 

9 not require the sharing of data that is inconsistent 

10 with applicable law and policy protecting— 

11 ‘‘(A) privacy and confidentiality; 

12 ‘‘(B) proprietary interests; 

13 ‘‘(C) business confidential information; 

14 ‘‘(D) intellectual property rights; and 

15 ‘‘(E) other relevant rights.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Scott, Appellant.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals his conviction of first degree sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl on July 9, 1984. He claims that the court charged the jury with an ex post facto law by reading the second sentence of Penal Law § 130.00 (3) (eff July 27, 1984). Such claim is without merit. Sexual contact is defined in the first sentence of Penal Law § 130.00 (3) as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party.” The 1984 amendment expressly states that contact may occur "directly or through clothing”. However, this change merely "tends to codify the existing case law interpretation of the definition” (Donnino, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, 1986 Supp Pamph, Penal Law § 130.00, p 470; *see, People v Ditta,*52 NY2d 657; *People v Teicher,*52 NY2d 638, 646-647; *see also,*2 CJI [NY] PL art 130 p 363) and does not change the meaning of the term "sexual contact”.

Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in swearing the victim as a witness since its preliminary examination revealed that she clearly understood the nature of an oath (CPL 60.20 [2]; *see, People v Parks,*41 NY2d 36, 46; *People v Bockeno,*107 AD2d 1051, 1052). Finally, the police officer’s testimony of the victim’s conversation, while hearsay, was properly admitted as evidence of timely complaint by the alleged victim of a sexual crime *(see, People v Gomez,*112 AD2d 445, 446; Richardson, Evidence § 292 [Prince 10th ed]). Defendant’s *Sandoval*claim has been examined and found to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — sexual abuse, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2911

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Pedro O. Montoya, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 31, 2009

Filed: September 2, 2009

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 sentenced Pedro Montoya to 180 months in prison after he

pled guilty to a drug count and a forfeiture count pursuant to a written plea agreement

that contained a waiver of appeal rights. In a brief filed under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the prison sentence and asserts an

ineffective-assistance claim on Montoya’s behalf. Montoya has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, claiming that he was misled by counsel about the length of his

prison sentence.

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
We enforce the appeal waiver contained in the written plea agreement, because

the record indicates that Montoya entered into the agreement and the waiver

knowingly and voluntarily, the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and

enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (describing conditions for

enforcing appeal waiver and discussing narrowness of miscarriage-of-justice

exception; alleged misapplication of Guidelines or abuse of discretion is not subject

to appeal in face of valid appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d

1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). To

the extent the ineffective-assistance claim falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver,

we decline to review it in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,

449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

Further, we reviewed the record independently in accordance with Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues beyond the scope of the

appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the

appeal.

______________________________

-2-
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2080 

AN ACT 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project involving Clark 

Canyon Dam. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2080 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY 

2 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT IN3 VOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM. 

4 Notwithstanding the time period described in section 

5 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

6 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com7 mission project numbered 12429, the Federal Energy 

8 Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the 

9 ‘‘Commission’’) shall, at the request of the licensee for the 

10 project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance 

11 with the procedures of the Commission under that section, 

12 reinstate the license and extend the time period during 

13 which the licensee is required to commence construction 

14 of project works for the 3-year period beginning on the 

15 date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2080 

AN ACT 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commenceinvolving Clark Canyon Dam. ment of construction of a hydroelectric project
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40319 Su m m ar yC al endar
O L E G A R IO P U G A -O L M O S , Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant

v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ; B U R E A U O F P R IS O N S , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 1: 08- C V

- 362

B ef ore D eM O S S , P R A D O , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * O l egari o P u ga-O l m os (P u ga), federalpr iso n e r # 39 505

- 037 , f i l ed su i tf

or d a m a ge s a n di nj u n ctive reli ef, pu rsu a n t B ive n s v . S ix Un k n o w n Na m edAgen ts of F ederalB u reau of

Narcot i cs , 4 0 3 U
. S
. 3 8 8 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a n dt h e F e d e r a lT o r tC l a i ms A ct( F T C A) , asser t i n g t h at th e U n i t ed S t ates o f A m e ri ca an d the B u reau of Pr i s o ns ha d a c t e d wi t h de l ibe r at e i ndif fe r e nc e t o hi s s e r i o us m e di c alne e ds a nd
n egl i gen t l y w i t h regard t o t h e t reat m en tof hi s i nj u red shou l der. Pu ga h as not United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40319

2 sh ow n tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt erred i n con cl u d i n g th a t P u ga cou l dn ot a sse rt a cl ai m f or dam ages aga i n stt h e defen da n t s un der Bi v e ns , as t h ose p art i es w ere n o t in d iv id u a ls
. S ee Bi v e ns , 4 0 3 U .S . a t 3 9 5 -9 7 ; Affi lia tedProf’l Ho m e Hea lth Ca reAgen cy v. S ch a la la , 1 6 4 F. 3 d2 8 2 , 2 8 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. No rh a s h e s h o wn t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n deter m i n i n g t h at t h e F T C Acl ai m w as prem ature be cau se Pugaha d no te xha us t e d hi s a dm i ni s t r ative r e m e di e s pr i o rt o t he in s tit u tio n o f th e a c t io n . S ee McNei lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 508 U
. S. 106, 111- 12 (1 9 9 3 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 5 (a ) (2 0 0 6 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is D IS M IS S E D
. S ee How ardv . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ); 5 T H C IR . R . 4 2 .2
. T h e d is m is s a l o f th is
a p p e a l a s fr iv o lo u s co u n ts a s as tr ik e u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee A depegba
v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W e C A U T IO N P u g a th a t if h e a c c u m u la te s th r e e s tr ik e s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (g), h e w ill n o t b e a b le to p r o c e e din f orm a pa u peri s i n an yc ivil a ction or ap pea lf i l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated or det ai ned i n any fac i l i t y unl es s he i s und eri m m i nentdangerof s er i ous physi c al inju r y . S ee § 1 9 1 5 (g).
Choosing to speak up 

about workplace issues 

like retaliation helps build 

a healthy and respectful 

work environment.

LEARN MORE

COAST GUARD

ANTI-RETALIATION

STOP RETALIATION BEFORE IT STARTS
Listen

# The Right to Criminal Legal Defense in Maine

November 1, 2023

The Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this report regarding indigent legal services in Maine. The Committee submits this report as part of its responsibility to study and report on civil rights issues in the state. The contents of this report are primarily based on testimony the Committee heard during public meetings held via videoconference on October 20, 2022; November 15, 2022; and December 15, 2022. The Committee also includes related testimony submitted in writing during the relevant period of public comment.

This report begins with a brief background of the issues to be considered by the Committee. It then presents primary findings as they emerged from this testimony, as well as recommendations for addressing areas of civil rights concerns. This report is intended to focus on civil rights concerns regarding the right to legal defense for indigent persons. While additional important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s inquiry, those matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another discussion.

Report

Report Addendum

Policy Brief

Press Release

Memo

Maine

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M UNKHB AYAR

PUUREE, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73974 Age n c y No. A088-120-338 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M unkhba y ar Puure e , a native an d c i tiz e n of M ongolia , pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a d

ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations c re ate d

by the REAL ID Ac t. S

hre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination ba se d on the om ission from Puure e ’ s de c la ra tion of de ath thre ats by

his form e r e m ploy e r and a

polic e inspe c t or, a

nd the inc onsiste nc ie s a

n d om issions re g arding the p olic e thre ats to Puure e ’ s fathe r a fte r Puure e de pa rte d M ongolia . Se e id. at 1048 (a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination wa s re a s ona ble unde r the tota lity

of c irc um s ta nc e s ). Puure e ’ s e xpla

nations, inc luding tra

n sla tion e rrors, do not c om

pe l a c ontra ry re s ult. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000). Furthe r, we re je c t Puure e ’ s c onte n tion tha t the a ge nc y

fa ile d to c o nside r his e xpla nations for the inc onsiste nc ie s a

n d om issions. In the

a bse nc e of c re dible te stim o ny , Puure e ’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Fina lly , Puure e ’ s C A T c la im a lso fa ils be c a

use it is ba se d on the sam e sta te m e nts found not cre d ible , a nd he doe s not point to a

ny othe r e vide nc e in the re c o rd to c om

pe l the finding tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not he would be torture d by

1 2 - 7 3 9 7 4 2or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l in M ongolia . Se e id. at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 3 9 7 4 3
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 Coast  Casinos,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gage
Parrish,  in my capacity as 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)
     of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly represents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ Gage Parrish
                                       -----------------------
                                       Gage Parrish
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       August 14, 2002