alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 13 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Kid an e San te Sh ul be
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
The Sta te of M in ne so ta ; As hl ey Ro se Henk e; Safe Have n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 28 , 20 15 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 6, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Kid an e Sh ul be ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s co m pl ai nt , in whi ch 1 he so ug ht rel ie f fro m an or de r en te red in a st at e-co ur t cas e an d he so ug ht da m ag es fo r

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es D ist rict Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.in

juri es all eg ed ly resu lt in g fr om th at or de r. He ha s al so fil edin th is co ur t a m ot io n
se ek in g th e rem ov al of

jud ge s who were in vo lv ed in th e st at e-co urt pr oc eed in gs
. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Sh ul be ’s co m pl ai nt wit ho ut pr ejud ic e up on co nc lu di ng th at , un de r th e Ro ok er-F el dm an do ct rin e, it la ck ed su bjec t m at te r ju r i sd ic ti on
. Upo n 2

care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd an d Sh ul be ’s arg um en ts on ap pe al , we co nc lu de th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er. See Mi nc h Fam il y LLLP. v. Bu ffal o- Red Ri ve r W at ers he d Dis t., 62 8 F.3 d 96 0, 96 5 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ) (d e no vo st an da rd of rev ie w); se e al so Fed

. R

. Ci v. P. 12 (h )(3 ) (if co urt de te rm in es at an y ti m e th at it la ck s su bjec t m a t t e r juri s di ct io n, co ur t m

us t di sm is s act io n) ; Exx on Mo bi l Co rp
. v. Sau di Bas ic In du s. Co rp ., 54 4 U.S. 28 0, 28 3- 84 (2 00 5) (d is cu s s i n g Ro ok er-F el dm an do ct rin e). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. W e al so d e n y S h u l b e ’s pe nd in g
m ot io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

See D.C. Ct

. App

. v. Fel dm an , 46 0 U.S. 46 2 (1 98 3) ; Ro ok er v. Fi d. Trus t Co ., 2 26 3 U.S. 4 13 (19 23 ).
-2

-
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6164** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. VAGAS DAVIS, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00309

- HEH

- 1 ; 3:13

- cv - 00617

- HEH )

Submitted : June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vagas Davis , Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM: Vagas Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying hi s motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). 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 de batable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2009059EN.01001201.xml

| 13.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/12

---

Communication concerning the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/157/09

(2009/C 59/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is publishing a corrigendum to open competition EPSO/AD/157/09 for the recruitment of lawyer-linguists (AD 7) with French as their main language.

This corrigendum is published in Official Journal C 59 A of 13 March 2009 in French only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 amended quarterly report of Novagen Solar Inc. on Form
10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Mills, President,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting
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,  as  amended;  and

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




Date: November 6, 2009                        By /s/ Thomas Mills
                                              Thomas Mills
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer, and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of SulphCo, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Larry D. Ryan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Stanley W. Farmer, Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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
      Registrant.




Date:
      February 25, 2010/s/ Larry D. RyanLarry
      D. Ryan
                Chief
      Executive Officer





Date:
      February 25, 2010/s/ Stanley W. FarmerStanley
      W. Farmer
                  Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer,
                  Treasurer
      and Corporate
Secretary




A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to
SulphCo, Inc. and will be retained by SulphCo, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2472 

To redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum Brook 

Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the 

Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center 

at Plum Brook Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. 

Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test 

Facility. 

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 ‘‘Neil A. Armstrong 

5 Test Facility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2472 IS

1 (1) Neil A. Armstrong, through his own defini2 tion, was first and foremost as a test pilot. 

3 (2) A native of Wapakoneta, Ohio, Armstrong 

4 began his inspiring career in space exploration in 

5 Cleveland, Ohio, at what is now the NASA John H. 

6 Glenn Research Center. 

7 (3) Becoming the first human to land a space8 craft, and then set foot upon, the moon, represents 

9 the greatest dream of any test pilot. 

10 (4) Therefore, it is fitting that the premier aer11 onautics and space test station in Ohio should be re12 named in his honor. 

13 SEC. 3. REDESIGNATION OF NASA JOHN H. GLENN RE14 SEARCH CENTER AT PLUM BROOK STATION, 

15 OHIO, AS NASA JOHN H. GLENN RESEARCH 

16 CENTER AT THE NEIL A. ARMSTRONG TEST 

17 FACILITY. 

18 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The NASA John H. Glenn 

19 Research Center at Plum Brook Station, Ohio, is hereby 

20 redesignated as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Cen21 ter at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. 

22 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg23 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

24 States to the station referred to in subsection (a) shall 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2472 IS

1 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘NASA John H. Glenn 

2 Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility’’. 

3 (c) SAVINGS.—Nothing in this section shall be con4 strued to alter the relationship between the Plum Brook 

5 Station and the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### FEIBUS & CO. v. CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 82

Reported: 301 NC 294

Petition by defendants to rehear denied 6 January 1981
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65052-65053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5741]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Working Education Training Program.
    Date: December 5, 2007.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East 
Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Inst. of Environmental Health Services, 
Office of Program Operations, Scientific Review Branch, P.O. Box 
12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1446, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd989e96988f8989ccbd939498958ed3939495d39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6603050d031412125726080f030e1548080f0e48010910">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 65053]]


    Dated: November 13, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5741 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANNA RUILOBA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 123

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20140D02097 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s sixth motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until December 7

, 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ruben P. Morales

, the Appellant ’ s attorney, prepare

the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 7 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of November

, 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
# C_2009059EN.01001202.xml

| 13.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/12

---

Communication concerning the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/158/09

(2009/C 59/09)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is publishing a corrigendum to open competition EPSO/AD/158/09 for the recruitment of lawyer-linguists (AD 7) with Swedish as their main language.

This corrigendum is published in Official Journal C 59 A of 13 March 2009 in Swedish only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
#### STATE v. JONES

No. 106 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 619.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 November 1979.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LYSNER VALCIN, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ

STEVEN DAVIS FARMS, LLC, 

and STEVEN DAVIS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel Initial

Disclosures. (Doc. 24.) Defendants have failed to file a response and the time for doing

so has passed. 

Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order compelling Defendant Steven Davis

to provide initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The parties were required to serve initial disclosures by October 20, 2010.

Rule 37(a)(3)(A) provides in relevant part that: “[I]f a party fails to make a disclosure

required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and for

appropriate sanctions.” In view of Plaintiffs’ representation that Defendant has failed to

provide initial disclosures - a representation that Defendant has not challenged as

evidenced by the failure to file a response to the motion to compel – the Court

concludes that Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel Initial Disclosures is due to be

granted.

Further, because Plaintiff has requested an award of fees - to which Defendant
Page 2 of 2

has not objected – the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of

their reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in filing the motion. The Court determines that

a reasonable fee to be awarded is the sum of $350.00. Plaintiffs are entitled to an

award of fees even if Defendant provided the initial disclosures to Plaintiffs after the

motion to compel was filed. See, Rule 37(a)(5)(A) (“if the motion is granted – or if the

disclosure ... is provided after the motion was filed – the court must ... require the party

... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses

in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”) 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel Initial Disclosures (Doc. 24) is

GRANTED. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with all initial disclosure

information required under Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure no later than January 7, 2011.

(2) Plaintiffs are awarded the sum of $350.00 as a sanction for Plaintiffs

having to prepare and file a motion to compel. Defendant shall pay

Plaintiffs’ counsel the sum of $350.00 no later than January 7, 2011. . 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00096-SPM -GRJ
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ISAAC LITHARIO PETERSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv332-MP-WCS

MICHAEL R MCCOY, 

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated October 20, 2011. (Doc. 76). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Additionally, Doc. 86, plaintiff's "Motion to Consider Plaintiff's Allegation of Perjury and

Forgery in Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Before Ruling on the Case" is

denied. The issue would only be relevant to credibility determinations which are not

appropriate at the summary judgment stage. Finally, Plaintiff's motion at Doc. 89, moving

the court to consider the two witness statements and the incident report, is granted to the

extent that the court has considered them in reviewing the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. The motion at Doc. 86 is DENIED, and the motion at Doc. 89 is GRANTED.

Case 4:10-cv-00332-MP-WCS Document 90 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Doc. 53, is GRANTED, and the Clerk

is directed to close this case.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 4:10cv332-MP-WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00332-MP-WCS Document 90 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

COLLEEN B. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv282/RS-MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25). No

objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and

incorporated in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 23) is granted. 

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412 (EAJA), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover

reasonable fees in the amount of $3,815.60 for representation by her

attorney, Heather M. Freeman, before the United States District Court for

the Northern District if Florida. The attorney’s fee under the EAJA in the

amount of $3,815.60 is reasonable, and the Commissioner is directed to

pay that amount to Plaintiff. 

4. Payment shall be mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney, Heather M. Freeman, at 55

W. Monroe Street, Suite 2440, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
5. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on March 30, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATIONS I, Boyd V. Applegate, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Porfavor, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  December 3, 2009     By: /s/ Boyd V. Applegate Boyd V. Applegate CEO, President, Director