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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ULRISTE TULIN, a/k/a Blade,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00173-LO-2; 1:19-cv-00157-LO)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ulriste Tulin, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, National Security Division, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ulriste Tulin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider, and his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud and 

misrepresentation. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Tulin 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 contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
LEROY HARDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0882

Opinion filed September 17, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Leroy Harden, pro se, Petitioner.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, C.J., CLARK and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON ,

Respondent ,

v. KENNETH CLYDE SHOPTAW ,

Appellant

. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36076

- 8

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

F EARING , J.

— Kenneth Shoptaw appeals fr om the judgment and sentence imposed for his Kittitas County convictions o f possession of a controlled substance , methamphetamine, and two counts each of residential burglary, second degree burglary, and first degree theft. On appeal, he solely assigns er ror to the imposition of a $200 criminal filing fee and a $100 DNA collection fee as l egal financial obligation s at sentencing

. We remand for the sentencing court to strike th ose fees. After a jury found Kenneth Shoptaw guilty of the crimes , the trial court imposed

an 84

- month sentence followed by twelve months of community custody. The court found Shoptaw indigent and imposed financial obligations of a $500 victim assessment, a $200 criminal filing fee and a $100 DNA collection fee

. Kenneth Shoptaw ask that we direct the striking of the $200 criminal filing fee and FILED MAY 30 , 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeal s, Division IIINo. 36 076

- 8

- III

State v. Shoptaw

2 the $100 DNA fee from his judgment and sentence based on State v. Ramirez , 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018)

. The State concedes that the fees should be struck

. House Bill 1783, effect ive June 7, 2018, prohibits trial courts from imposing the certain financial obligations on defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); State v. Ramirez , 191 Wn.2d at 74 6

. Ramirez held that the amendment applies prospectively to cases pending on direct review and not final when the amendment was enacted. State v. Ramirez , 191 Wn.2d at 747. The changes included an amendment to former RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) to prohibit the imposition of the $200 criminal filing fee o n indigent defendants and an amendment to former RCW 43.43.7541 to make the DNA database fee no longer mandatory if the State has previously collected the offender’s DNA as a result of a prior conviction. L AWS OF 2018, ch. 269, §§ 17(2)(h) , 18

. Kenneth Shoptaw’s case is controlled by Ramirez

. He was indigent at the time of sentencing and remains indigent on appeal. T he State acknowledges that his DNA has previously been collected pursuant to a felony conviction . Accordingly , the $200
criminal filing f

ee and $100 DNA collection fee should be struck pursuant to Ramirez

. We accept the State’s concessions and remand for the trial court to strike the $200 filing fee and $100 DNA collection fee from the judgment and sentence.No. 36076-8-III State v. Shoptaw

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.

Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J.

3
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DE L I A MAR I T Z A P E R E Z - F AJAR DO , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70487 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 639- 786 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D el i a M ar i tzaP er ez -F aj ar do , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) order denyi ng her mo t i o n t o r e o p e n r e mo v a lp r o c e e d i n g s . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the B I A ’ s de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n, 

# FI LED FEB 14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 70487 2 N aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F . 3d 983, 986 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P e r e z - F a jar d o ’s m o tio n to r e ope n a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e P e r e z - F a j ar do f a i l e d t o pr e s e ntm a t e r i a le vi de nc e of c hange d c i r c um s t anc e s i n G ua t e m a l at o qua l i f yf orthe r e gul a t orye xc e pt i on t o the tim e lim it f

o rf ilin g am o tio n to r e o p e n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ); N ajm abadi , 5 9 7 F .3 da t 9 9 0 ( p r e v io u s lyu n av a ilab le e v id e n c e m u s t b e m a te r ia l to the pet i t i on er ’ s c l ai m ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           273,952
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      61,343
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 335,295
<CASH>                                          28,729
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 806
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          15,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 440,902
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                141,189
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             59,723
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,642
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   440,902
<PREMIUMS>                                      88,742
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             10,876
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,708
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     171
<BENEFITS>                                      48,245
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     27,565
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             1,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,013
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 108,928<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             48,245
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               8,394
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                21,598
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                127,181<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>UNPAID LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSES DIFFER FROM THE AMOUNTS REPORTED IN
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE OF THE INCLUSION HEREIN OF
REINSURANCE RECEIVABLES OF $14,008 AND $13,502 AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated: April 28, 2006       /s/ John Weale         Name: John R. Weale    Title: Chief Financial Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)and is not being filed as part of the Report.
26
Keith CHARLESTON, petitioner, v. Jeffrey WOODS, Warden.

No. 18-7933.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

*1561Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
In Re William Edward CLONINGER, petitioner.

No. 18-8170.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
# C_2021494EN.01000101.xml

| 8.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 494/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 494/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2021-2022 SESSION

Sittings of 24 and 25 March 2021

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1393

To provide wage parity for certain Department of Defense employees in

Texas and Oklahoma.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1999

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To provide wage parity for certain Department of Defense

employees in Texas and Oklahoma.

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

3 That notwithstanding any other provision of law limiting

4 the amounts payable to prevailing wage rate employees (as

5 defined in section 5342 of title 5, United States Code)

6 of the Department of Defense, during fiscal year 1999,

7 such employees who are employed in the Wichita Falls,

8 Texas and Southwest Oklahoma wage areas shall be paid

9 the same wages they would receive if they were employed

10 in the Oklahoma City wage area, beginning with the first
2

•HR 1393 IH

1 pay period on or after the date of the enactment of this

2 Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1628

SARA E. PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOMESTEAD STUDIO SUITES HOTEL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-69-5)

Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sara E. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian David Darer, PARKER, POE,

ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sara E. Parker appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her housing discrimination action based on res judicata.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Parker v. Homestead Studio Suites Hotel, No. CA-05-69-5

(E.D.N.C. May 13, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10763 Su m m ar y C al endar

CONN I E RAY P AL M ER , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. SHE RI FF T OM CALLAH AN ; W I CH I TA FALLS POLI CE D EPARTM EN T; OFF I CER S ANDY L AM B , 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 N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 09- C V

- 22

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * C onni e Ray Pal m er , Texas pr i so ner# 1142309, m ove s t hi s c our tf orl eave t o p r o c e e d i n fo r m a p a u p e r is (I F P ) i n th is a p p e a l f r o m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di s m i s s a l o f h i s 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 9 8 3 c o m p l a i n t
. Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t he
c om pl ai nt as f

r i vol ous be c ause i tw as t i m e b ar r ed and, al t er nat i vel y, bar r ed by Heck v. H u mph rey , 5 12 U

. S. 4 77 ( 19 94 )

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc e r t i f i e d t hatt he ap pea lw as not t ak en i n good fai t h f or t h ese r eason s. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 21, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10763 Document: 00511088153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 09- 10763

2 In h i s IF P m ot i on , P al m er d oes n ota dd ress the d i st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason s f or d e n y in gIF P

. B y fa ilin g to d is c u s s th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s r a tio n a le fo rd e n y in gh is I FP m ot i on, Pal m er has abandoned t hos e i ss ues , and i t i s t he sa m e as i f he had
n o t a p p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r . S ee B rin k m a n n v. D a lla s C o u n ty D ep u ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F. 2 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 7 )

. Ac c o r d i ng l y , Pa l m e r ’ s I FP
m o tio n is d e n ie d a n d h is a p p e a l is d is m is s e d a s fr iv o lo u s . Se e Ho w ar d v

. Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ); 5 T H C IR
. R. 4 2 .2
. Pal m er i s c aut i oned t hat t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s c om pl ai nt as f ri vol ou s and our di sm i ssalof t h i s app ealas f

ri vol ou s each coun tas a st ri ke f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (g ). Se e A de pegb a v. Ham m o ns , 103 F. 3d 383, 387 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)

. Pa l m er i s f u rt h er cau t i on ed that i f he accum u l ates t h ree s t ri kes pu rsuan tt o § 1915 ( g) , he m ay n otproceed I F P i n an y ci vi lact i on or ap pea lf i l ed
w hi l e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d orde t ai ne d i n a ny fac i l i t y unl e s s he i s und e ri m m i ne nt d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee § 1 9 1 5 (g). I F P DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED

. Case: 09-10763 Document: 00511088153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2010
# Official Journal C 523/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 523 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6428 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 523

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6428 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | JOINT DECLARATIONS |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 523/01 | Joint statement by the European Parliament and by the Council | 1 |
| 2021/C 523/02 | Statement by the Commission | 2 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 523/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10416 – STELLANTIS / FIH / JV) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

page

II   Information

JOINT DECLARATIONS

Council

2021/C 523/01

Joint statement by the European Parliament and by the Council

1

2021/C 523/02

Statement by the Commission

2

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 523/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10416 – STELLANTIS / FIH / JV) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Food Safety Authority |
| 2021/C 523/04 | Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission | 4 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 523/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Food Safety Authority

2021/C 523/04

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission

4

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 523/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2021/C 523/06 | Decision | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 523/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10585 – APMH INVEST / UNILABS) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2021/C 523/06

Decision

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 523/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10585 – APMH INVEST / UNILABS) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-17-00430- CV In re Brenco, LLC d/b/a B renco Exotic Woods
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator Br enco, L L C d/b/a Br enco Ex otic Woo d s fi l ed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s ref usal to e nforc e a for

um selection cla

use and dismiss t h e u n d er l y i n g lawsuit. See Tex. R. App. P . 52. Having revie wed the petition, the response filed by the re al par

ties in interest, and the rec ord provided, we deny the petition f or writ of mandamus. See id. R. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Field, a nd Bour land Filed: Jul y

13, 2017
William E. BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7814.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Ricardo GUERRERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8316.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 the Annual Report of Wigwam Development, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Grauer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of 10th
day of September 2003.

/s/ Steven Grauer
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer