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

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Energy Fuels
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen P. Antony, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Stephen P. Antony        
| | -----------------------------
| | Stephen P. Antony            
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: March 15, 2016

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Derrick Talerico (SBN 223763) 

dtalerico@ztlegal.com 

David B. Zolkin (SBN 155410) 

dzolkin@ztlegal.com 

ZOLKIN TALERICO LLP 

12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1120 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Tel: (424) 500-8551 

Fax: (424) 500-8951 

Attorneys for Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead

Case, No. 19-30088 (DM)

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF FILING OF MOTION OF 

WESTERN ELECTRICITY 

COORDINATING COUNCIL TO FILE 

PROOFS OF CLAIM AND ANY 

AMENDMENTS THERETO UNDER 

SEAL 

[No Hearing Requested] 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4189 Filed: 10/10/19 Entered: 10/10/19 18:58:36 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 10, 2019, Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (“WECC”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) pursuant to sections 105(a) of title 11 of the 

United States Code and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the New 

District Wide Procedures for Electronically Filing Sealed and Redacted Documents adopted by 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California for entry of an order 

authorizing WECC to file under seal its proofs of claim in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s 

bankruptcy case, as well as any amendments thereto. In support of the Motion, WECC also filed 

the Declaration of Heather M. Laws contemporaneously therewith. 

DATED: October 10, 2019 ZOLKIN TALERICO LLP 

By: /s/ Derrick Talerico 

 Derrick Talerico 

 David B. Zolkin 

 Attorneys for Western Electricity Coordinating 

 Council 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4189 Filed: 10/10/19 Entered: 10/10/19 18:58:36 Page 2 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 1 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 2 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 3 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 4 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 5 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 6 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 7 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 8 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 9 of

35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 10

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 11

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 12

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 13

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 14

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 15

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 16

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 17

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 18

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 19

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 20

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 21

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 22

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 23

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 24

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 25

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 26

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 27

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 28

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 29

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 30

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 31

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 32

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 33

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 34

of 35
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4492 Filed: 10/28/19 Entered: 10/28/19 15:23:39 Page 35

of 35
Exhibit 99.1


                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of State Financial Services Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Michael J. Falbo
--------------------------------------
Michael J. Falbo
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2002
Exhibit 32.1
                 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 the Quarterly Report of Advanced Battery
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Zhiguo Fu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. as of and for the
period covered by the Report.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed
filed.

Dated:  November 14, 2005             /s/ Zhiguo Fu
                                      -----------------------------
                                      Zhiguo Fu
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chairman of the Board
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5344 

To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor 

by civilians, with exceptions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. HONDA (for himself, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, and 

Mr. PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of 

enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions. 

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 ‘‘Responsible Body 

5 Armor Possession Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5344 IH

1 SEC. 2. BAN ON PURCHASE, OWNERSHIP, OR POSSESSION 

2 OF ENHANCED BODY ARMOR BY CIVILIANS; 

3 EXCEPTIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of 

8 enhanced body armor by civilians 

9 ‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be 

10 unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess en11 hanced body armor. 

12 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— 

13 ‘‘(1) a purchase, ownership, or possession by or 

14 under the authority of— 

15 ‘‘(A) the United States or any department 

16 or agency of the United States; or 

17 ‘‘(B) a State, or a department, agency, or 

18 political subdivision of a State; or 

19 ‘‘(2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully 

20 possessed by any person at any time before the date 

21 this section takes effect.’’. 

22 (b) ENHANCED BODY ARMOR DEFINED.—Section 

23 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 

24 following: 

25 ‘‘(36) The term ‘enhanced body armor’ means body 

26 armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5344 IH

1 of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of 

2 Type III armor, determined using National Institute of 

3 Justice Standard–0101.06.’’. 

4 (c) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 932 shall be 

7 fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, 

8 or both.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5441 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5441

  To amend the Federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
 United States to reflect the service of women in the Armed Forces of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 2014

Mr. Miller of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
 United States to reflect the service of women in the Armed Forces of 
                           the United States.

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

SECTION 1. REFLECTION OF SERVICE OF WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES IN THE 
              FEDERAL CHARTER OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    (a) Organization.--Section 230101(a) of title 36, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``men'' and inserting ``veterans''.
    (b) Purposes.--Section 230102(3) of such title is amended by 
striking ``widows'' and inserting ``surviving spouses''.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 AUGUST 19, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14684

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00167-CR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL CORDANIEZ MILLIGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 19, 2009)

Before BIRCH, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John J. Pilcher, II, appointed counsel for Rafael Cordaniez Milligan, has
filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Milligan’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Robert Richmond, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SteelCloud, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial 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(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: March 19, 2007 By: /s/ Robert Richmond       Name: Robert Richmond  Title: Chief Operating Officer
22
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20414

Summary Calendar

AARON GREENLEE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEAN DARREN ALLREAD, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DEAN DARREN ALLRED, individually and in his official 

capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Harris County,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:01-CV-1335)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dean Darren Allred, a former deputy sheriff for Harris County,

Texas, pursues this interlocutory appeal from the denial of his

qualified immunity claim for a false arrest claim brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Aaron Greenlee. We have jurisdiction to

determine, as a matter of law, whether a defendant is entitled to

qualified immunity, after accepting all of the plaintiff’s factual
2

allegations as true, by determining whether those facts show, inter

alia, that the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under

clearly established law at the time of the conduct. E.g., Kinney

v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346-50 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). (We

need not reach whether Allred reasonably relied on the field test

he conducted to determine probable cause.)

The district court ruled that, based upon our court’s

precedent, the arrest could not be supported by the probable cause

that existed for the traffic violations discovered by Allred before

and during his stop of Greenlee’s vehicle. The Supreme Court’s

decision in Devenpeck v. Alford, 125 S. Ct. 588, 593-95 (2004),

abrogates our court’s rule that the uncharged offense establishing

probable cause be related to, and based upon the same conduct as,

the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of the

arrest, see Trejo v. Perez, 693 F.2d 482, 485-86 (5th Cir. 1982),

or given by the officer at booking, see Gassner v. City of Garland,

864 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s determinations in

regard to Allred’s summary judgment motion based upon qualified

immunity and REMAND the case to the district court for

consideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in

Devenpeck. (On remand, should the district court continue to deny

qualified immunity and should Allred pursue another interlocutory
3

appeal, the field-test issue not reached in this opinion will be

subject to our review, should Allred again present it.)

VACATED AND REMANDED
QERALD C. MANN 

rrru”,.*“uu 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAt,OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Iion. L.L. Roberts, Oaunty Auditor 

siutotrinacn ool.luty 

Stiunott , Texas 

Dear sir: 

I;as ba 

dr f :or 

advised vhethw 

7 * .+ * md provided ruxthr that all l;he ohildren mai@- 

Sq; in a school di&riet a%Jr be 

tmnsf~rred to mother diatriot, 

or to an independent dlstrlot, 
IIon. L.L. Roburts, Bebruary 9, 1999; P8@e a 

Article X387, R.C.S., reads, ia 

yzrt, i7I.y Solla,rs: 

'nib3 ~bli0 fiit0 sOhO ii&UdR 

01x111 not bc expended exoept for 

the Following purpQ5or: 

x** 

"2. Looal aohOo1 funds rrOm 

di8triot tuXefY, tUitiOU ie6U Qi 

pUpi18 llot entitled to iree ttition and o‘lher looal8ouroes my 

be wed for the purp08es enumeratt; 

ed for State and omnty tundrr'* * 'W 

Thurofore, ii In the o#nion qY 

the Board of TrUStW8, the purohaoe Oi she 

baud utabm8 is d0euiea neoe8eary to the eonduot of the p.iblio sohoola and Is so determined by the Ikmrd of l!XWtee8, it appe@rre 

that 1OCttl tax tWld8 ray be Bx 

purposes under. Artiolo E&39, o 4 

ended iOr euoh 

ted abovq.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7828** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DARRENCE TERMAINE COVINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00125

- FL

- 1; 5:09

- cv - 00565

- FL )

Submitted : February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Darrence Termaine Covington, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATT ORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrence Termaine Covington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The o rder 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 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 Covington 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 th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Glowpoint, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Edwin F. Heinen, Chief Financial 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
      of
      and for the periods indicated.




This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
      January 31, 2007


/s/
                      Edwin F. HeinenEdwin
                        F. Heinen
                      Chief
                          Financial
                          Officer
#### In the Matter of Department of Public Parks, Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards.

Application denied. See Mem.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Lackawanna and Pittsburg Railroad Company to Acquire Lands of William Lampson, Appellant.

Order affirmed.