alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DEAUNTRE MONTGOMERY,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10217

D.C. No. 

3:17-cr-00095-WHA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2019 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Deauntre Montgomery appeals his conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(1) for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon and,

specifically, the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress a handgun

discovered during a stop and frisk. We affirm. 

FILED

OCT 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
We review reasonable suspicion determinations de novo and the findings of

historical facts underlying that determination for clear error. United States v.

Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted). In

doing so, we afford “due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident

judges and local law enforcement officers.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted).

Defendant concedes that the officers had reasonable suspicion that he had

engaged in criminal activity, justifying his initial detention under Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). He challenges only whether the officers established

reasonable suspicion for the subsequent frisk. We assess the reasonableness of a

Terry frisk under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Arvizu, 534

U.S. 266, 273 (2002). 

Here, the district court identified a number of factors supporting the frisk,

the most important of which was the two officers’ testimony that the defendant’s

hand and arm movements led them to independently and simultaneously suspect

that the defendant was concealing contraband or a weapon. The district court

credited their testimony, noting that the differences in their descriptions of the

defendant’s actions did not make their testimony unreliable. Rather, the court

credited the officers’ independent and simultaneous conclusions that the movement

they saw appeared suspicious and indicated concealment of a weapon or

2
contraband in the defendant’s waistband. This factor, coupled with the other

factors cited by the district court, justified its conclusion that there was reasonable

suspicion for the frisk under the totality of the circumstances. Given the record

and the deference we owe to the inferences drawn by the district court and the onscene officers, see Vales-Vegas, 738 F.3d at 1077, there was no reversible error in

the district court’s decision to deny the suppression motion.

AFFIRMED. 

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

EMILY R. ADAMS,,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-CV-306-SPM/WCS

BP PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

________________________________/

ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS

PENDING JPML DECISION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motions to

Stay the Proceedings (docs. 5, 30). This case involves a suit to recover damages

arising out of an oil rig explosion and ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Defendants request that this Court stay all proceedings in this case pending a

ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to

transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana, along with several related cases involving this incident which have

already been so transferred. The Court finds this request to be reasonable, as

the stay will preserve judicial resources in the event that the cases are ultimately

consolidated. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Page 2 of 2

1. The Motions to Stay (docs. 5, 30) are hereby granted.

2. All proceedings and deadlines in this case are temporarily stayed,

pending the JPML’s final decision on whether to transfer this action

to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

3. Defendants shall file a status report apprising the Court of the

status of the transfer request before the JPML on or before

November 1, 2010.

DONE AND ORDERED this second day of September, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 23 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 23 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 23 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2444 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2444

   To establish a minimum staffing level of U.S. Customs and Border 
 Protection officers along the northern border, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2019

Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mrs. Shaheen) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish a minimum staffing level of U.S. Customs and Border 
 Protection officers along the northern border, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Border Officers Utilization for 
National Defense Act of 2019'' or the ``BOUND Act''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION STAFFING ALONG THE 
              NORTHERN BORDER.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall 
ensure that not fewer than the maximum number of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection officers deployed along the international border 
between the United States and Canada (referred to in this Act as the 
``northern border'') at any time between January 1, 2016 and the date 
of the enactment of this Act are always deployed along the northern 
border, including ports of entry along the northern border.
    (b) Limitation on Transfers.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection may not transfer any U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection officer away from an assignment along the northern border if 
such transfer would reduce the number of such officers assigned to the 
northern border below the level required under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv14/MCR/MD

0.37 OF AN ACRE OF LAND, MORE

OR LESS, SITUATE IN ESCAMBIA

COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY TO SERVE AS

GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND ATTORNEY AD LITEM

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to appoint an attorney to serve as

guardian ad litem to represent such unnamed defendants as may be infants, incompetents,

or otherwise not sui juris, and as attorney ad litem to represent unnamed defendants who

may be in the military service of the United States. (Doc. 8.) The plaintiff represents that

Attorney Christopher R. Johnson, Esq., 7 N. Coyle Street, Pensacola, Forida 32502, is a

member in good standing of the Florida bar and the Bar of this court; that he consents to

the appointment as guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem; and that he is not related to

the parties involved in this suit.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and Attorney Ad

Litem (doc. 8) is hereby GRANTED. 

2. Christopher R. Johnson, Esq., shall be and is hereby appointed guardian ad

litem such unnamed defendants as may be infants, incompetents, or otherwise not sui
Page 2 of 2

juris, and as attorney ad litem to represent unnamed defendants who may be in the military

service of the United States. 

3. Christopher R. Johnson, Esq., is hereby directed to file within twenty-one (21)

days after receipt of this order and attached complaint such pleadings as may be deemed

appropriate. 

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case No.: 3:10cv14/MCR/MD
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2252 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand the permitted 

uses of drug price information disclosed to States under the Medicaid 

drug rebate program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2019 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand 

the permitted uses of drug price information disclosed 

to States under the Medicaid drug rebate program. 

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 ‘‘Empowering States 

5 to Address Drug Costs Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2252 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PERMITTED USES OF DRUG PRICE 

2 INFORMATION DISCLOSED TO STATES UNDER 

3 MEDICAID DRUG REBATE PROGRAM. 

4 Clause (iv) of section 1927(b)(3)(D) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–8(b)(3)(D)) is amended to 

6 read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(iv) to States— 

8 ‘‘(I) to carry out this title, or 

9 ‘‘(II) to review the information 

10 provided (including average manufac11 turer price, best price, and rebate cal12 culation data) for the purposes of es13 tablishing and operating State all14 payer prescription drug rate setting 

15 entities (drug affordability boards) or 

16 State multi-payer purchasing pools,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2009125EN.01001201.xml

| 5.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 June 2009

2009/C 125/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4095 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4479 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86890 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8115 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5126 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9055 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,931 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 287,10 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5193 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2145 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1784 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7732 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5694 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9257 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2480 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0400 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 757,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3902 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6313 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3580 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 218,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9220 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,481 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,6440 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,141 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7713 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8380 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,5350 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4095

JPY

Japanese yen

136,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4479

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86890

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8115

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5126

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9055

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,931

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

287,10

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5193

RON

Romanian leu

4,2145

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1784

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7732

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5694

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9257

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2480

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0400

KRW

South Korean won

1 757,87

ZAR

South African rand

11,3902

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6313

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3580

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 218,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9220

PHP

Philippine peso

66,481

RUB

Russian rouble

43,6440

THB

Thai baht

48,141

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7713

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8380

INR

Indian rupee

66,5350

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2011357EN.01001101.xml

| 7.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/11

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 357/04

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 15.11.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 15.11.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HER/3D25.; HER/3D26.; HER/3D27.; HER/3D28.; HER/3D29.; HER/3D32. (HER/3D-R30) |
| Species | Herring (Clupea harengus) |
| Zone | EU waters of Subdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | — |

Date and time of closure

15.11.2011

Duration

15.11.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

Poland

Stock or Group of stocks

HER/3D25.; HER/3D26.; HER/3D27.; HER/3D28.; HER/3D29.; HER/3D32. (HER/3D-R30)

Species

Herring (Clupea harengus)

Clupea harengus

Zone

EU waters of Subdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

—

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:10cr67-RV

JUAN JALOMO-RUIZ /

STANDING ORDER AND NOTICE TO

RETAINED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Retained criminal defense attorneys are expected to make financial

arrangements that are satisfactory to themselves and sufficient to provide for

representation of each defendant until the conclusion of the defendant's case. Unless

this Court, within seven (7) days after arraignment, is notified in writing of counsel's

withdrawal because of the defendant's failure to make satisfactory financial

arrangements, this Court will expect retained counsel to represent the defendant until

the conclusion of the case. Failure of a defendant to pay sums owed for attorney's fees

or failure of counsel to collect a sum sufficient to compensate for all the services usually

required of defense counsel will not constitute good cause for withdrawal after the 7-

day period has expired.

Every defendant has a right to appeal from any conviction. Thus, the further

expectation of this Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is that retained counsel, in making satisfactory financial arrangements, will 1

contemplate services to be rendered upon appeal.

If a defendant moves the Court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and/or

for appointment of Criminal Justice Act appellate counsel, retained counsel will, in

addition to the information required under Form 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,

be required to fully disclose in camera (1) the attorney's fee agreement and the total

amount of such fees and costs paid to date, in cash or otherwise; (2) by whom fees and

costs were paid; (3) any fees and costs remaining unpaid and the complete terms of

agreements concerning payment thereof; (4) the costs actually incurred to date; and

(5) a detailed description of services actually rendered to date, including a record of the

itemized time (to the nearest 1/10 of an hour) for each service, both in-court and outof-court, and the total time. Note that matters involving the receipt of fees from a client

are not generally privileged, United States v. Sims, 845 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1988); In

re Slaughter, 694 F.2d 1258 (11th Cir. 1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings: United

States v. Jones, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975). All such information submitted will, of

course, be viewed in camera by the Court for the purpose of deciding the defendant's

motion, and will be a part of the record (sealed if requested) in this case.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, this policy will be strictly adhered to; such

circumstances may be brought to the Court's attention by motion to be relieved of the

See 11th Circuit Rules Addendum Four, "Eleventh Circuit Plan 1

under the Criminal Justice Plan," § (d).

2
duty to represent the defendant upon appeal.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson

 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3
# C_2009020EN.01001102.xml

| 27.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5102 — Danfoss/VKR Holding/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 20/10)

On 10 December 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5102. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5102. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2071 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Mr. ROUNDS (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians. 

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 ‘‘Repealing Existing 

5 Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with 

6 Tribes Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE LAWS RELATING 

8 TO INDIANS. 

9 (1) Section 2080 of the Revised Statutes (25 

10 U.S.C. 72) is repealed. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2071 IS

1 (2) Section 2100 of the Revised Statutes (25 

2 U.S.C. 127) is repealed. 

3 (3) Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

4 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 128), is repealed. 

5 (4) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

6 1875 (18 Stat. 424, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 129), 

7 is amended under the heading ‘‘CHEYENNES 

8 AND ARAPAHOES.’’ by striking ‘‘; that the Sec9 retary of the Interior be authorized to withhold, 

10 from any tribe of Indians who may hold any captives 

11 other than Indians, any moneys due them from the 

12 United States until said captives shall be surren13 dered to the lawful authorities of the United 

14 States’’. 

15 (5) Section 2087 of the Revised Statutes (25 

16 U.S.C. 130) is repealed. 

17 (6) Section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

18 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 137), is repealed. 

19 (7) Section 2101 of the Revised Statutes (25 

20 U.S.C. 138) is repealed. 

21 (8) Section 7 of the Act of June 23, 1879 (21 

22 Stat. 35, chapter 35; 25 U.S.C. 273), is repealed. 

23 (9) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

24 1893 (27 Stat. 612, chapter 209), is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2071 IS

1 (A) under the heading ‘‘MISCELLA2 NEOUS SUPPORTS.’’ (27 Stat. 628; 25 

3 U.S.C. 283), by striking the last 2 undesig4 nated paragraphs; and 

5 (B) under the heading ‘‘FOR SUPPORT 

6 OF SCHOOLS.’’ (27 Stat. 635; 25 U.S.C. 

7 283), by striking the second undesignated para8 graph. 

9 (10) Section 18 of the Act of June 30, 1913 

10 (38 Stat. 96, chapter 4; 25 U.S.C. 285), is amended 

11 by striking the tenth undesignated paragraph. 

12 (11) The Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 325, 

13 chapter 3504), is amended under the heading ‘‘COM14 MISSIONER.’’ under the heading ‘‘I. GENERAL 

15 PROVISIONS.’’ (34 Stat. 328; 25 U.S.C. 302) by 

16 striking the fourth undesignated paragraph. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### PITTS v. PIZZA, INC.

No. 48 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 270.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 April 1978.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHANE SWIFT, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv90-SPM/AK

BANCORPSOUTH BANK,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

After Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (doc. 6), Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint (doc. 9-1). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is denied as moot.

2. The denial is without prejudice to Defendant’s opportunity to file 

another motion to dismiss directed toward the amended complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### EQUITABLE FACTORS CO. v. CHAPMAN-HARKEY CO.

No. 100 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 189.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1979.
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 BSV V, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer, 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 and belief:





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
Registrant.




Dated:
      November 23, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Douglas
      A. DyerDouglas
      A. Dyer
                President
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                (Principal
      Financial /Accounting
Officer)